I would like to follow up on a comment left on my last blog post, as I wanted to venture into a territory sort of like that, but it was too much to do in one post, I thought.
The comment concerned the fact that there are so many words to express different hues of the same primary color. For example, red. There is crimson, auburn, maroon, brick red, and burgundy. All describe different shades of red, but alter the red in either making it darker or lighter, with varying degrees of light and dark. It is astounding that there can be so many different names for the same idea. Why do we not just call everything the same? When we see the Minnesota Gophers' maroon, why can't we just call it red instead? I mean, the same idea is getting across, isn't it? Not entirely.
I am going to spit-ball many ideas with no real organization right now, so be prepared. I may or may not come back to organize it.
I think that one of the goals or objectives of language is to describe the world as we see it. Specificity in language means a more thorough and precise understanding of the world. I think that many people think that if we have a most precise vocabulary, that we will eventually or finally understand reality as it truly is. However, I would argue that there is no fundamental reality and that language is a testament to this fact. There is no common language, so there cannot be any common, objective Reality. Using the example of red, we see a fire truck and we see a Golden Gopher T-Shirt. When we see the first, we say that it is red (taking the stereotypical fire truck, of course) and when we see the t-shirt, we can say that it is also red. The red of the t-shirt, however, is not the same red as the fire truck, so we have to come up with a new way of expressing this new form of red. We could call it simply dark red and could move on with life. Then we would run into the following problem: we see the t-shirt and the truck but then a brick enters into our field of vision. We look at the brick and say that it is red. However, it is not the same red as the truck, as it appears to be a little bit darker than the truck. So we decide to call it dark red. By calling it dark red, we are then saying that it is the same red as that of the t-shirt, but we notice that this is not the case, as the hue of the shirt is darker than the hue of the brick. As the color of the brick is between that of the truck and the shirt, we could call the color medium red.
Ok. There we go, we have clarified this issue. But then a person enters the room. We notice that their hair is red, so we call it red. Upon further inspection, it turns out not to be actually red, as it seems to be a red darker than the red of the fire truck. So we agree that it is dark red. We look at this person some more and determine that it is not actually the dark red of the t-shirt, but is lighter in hue, so we call it medium red. We find that the hair is actually not the same color as the brick, as it seems to be darker than the medium red, but not as dark as the dark red. So what do we call it now? Medium-ish red? Medium-dark red? I suppose either of those names could work, but then when we have more objects in our mind, it becomes even further complicated because then we have to remember that medium red is like the brick, dark red is the shirt, red is the fire truck, and that this person's hair is medium-dark red. This seems, at least to me, to be quite confusing. This is part of the reason why we have so many different names for the different shades of red. We are trying to accurately convey how we see the world.
Sometimes (I would argue most of the time) these details are not important at all, as when we are told that something was crimson red, we do not make a very good distinction in our mind between crimson red and dark red or maroon or a shade close to crimson red. When someone says red or a color related to red, we think red regardless.
The same can go for video games, another example provided in a comment of the previous post. We have different names for different consoles so that we do not have to explain to a person that when we say "Pong" we do not mean the "Pong" of the 1970s, but rather the "Pong" of 2012, with the remote controls that are wireless, requiring nothing but a small sensor bar connected to the console and that is moved by your relation to the sensor (I tried to explain Wii here). So I think that having different words for distinct things is to provide precision and be efficient. As you can see, there was a lot of qualification to the second "Pong" that was necessary to distinguish it from its original. If we used the same word for both, then we would have to do a lot of talking, and humans are always trying to do more with less, right?
Language is beautiful for many reasons, but one of the most impressive things is that it can convey so much with so little. Each word has a very specific function and superfluous words are laid at the wayside. We no longer use Thee and Thou in common parlance, as we found a way to get around using these and instead just combined them into one word, "you."
I have always found Spanish to be a very efficient language, conveying many things in a single word. For example, the verb tenses of Spanish indicate (obviously) the meaning they are trying to get across, time (when the action occurred), person (I, You, He/She, etc.), number (singular or plural), and mood (something doubtful or unsure, or a command). Take, for example, the word "comí." By saying this we can find out so much about what the speaker or writer is trying to convey. We understand that it happened to the speaker, as it is in the "I" form, and so therefore this person was acting alone (number). We can understand that what the speaker was doing was eating (as this is the definition of the word). We can understand that there was no doubt about it, they were definitely participating in the act of eating. As well, we glean that it happened to them in the past. So, with one word, a Spanish speaker can say "I ate." This may not seem too bad, but note that the following does not happen as much in Spanish as it does in English: "I read" and "I read." The two are written exactly the same, but one indicates a time in the past while the other indicates the present. English would have to provide more context clues for a reader to fully understand and realize the original intention of the speaker whereas Spanish can do it with one word. Spanish words are powerful, providing a lot of information in four letters.
I think there was more, but my mind is tired. More later.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Language
So, after a long time, I have decided that I am going to try to revive this blog of mine, considering I have a lot of free time in Spain to contemplate life and stuff. So if you are a trooper and begin reading both this blog and my other one, wow. You fall into at least one of the following categories: (a) really love reading, and particularly love reading my stuff (b) have nothing better to do (c) read these only to make me feel better. In any case, thank you. It means a lot. This blog is meant to be more conducive of discussion, so go at it, y'all.
The topic today: language.
This is something that surrounds us and we encounter on a daily basis. By virtue of reading this, you are interacting with language. We are language-based creatures and need to express ourselves through words, movements, pictures, something. However, I want to here focus solely on the languages that are written (in turn read) and spoken (in turn heard).
Language and the theory or philosophy of language is an area that I have long wanted to delve into and explore, but have never had sufficient time to do so. Given this, all that follows is uneducated (for the most part) and has not been researched at all, unless mentioned. What follows are merely the things swimming around in my head at the moment or that have been doing so for some time.
This past semester I took a course in the philosophy department that was concerned with the history of ancient philosophy. We began with the first "philosopher," Thales, who believed that everything was water [ponder that for a moment...seems a little crazy, but give it some time to digest] and progressed to the biggies, Plato and Aristotle. In one of Aristotle's texts on logic (if I remember correctly, for those interested, it was in his work entitled De Interpretatione, or Of/On Interpretation), Aristotle discusses what a synonym, homonym, and other linguistic terms actually mean. Clearly articulating and revising definitions is something characteristic of Aristotle and his texts. After I read what he had to say about language, I stopped to think for a moment or two. What he said made a lot of sense on the surface and prompted more thoughts (I have not delved into the specifics of his thinking on these topics...that is for another day).
Think about how arbitrary language is.......
There is nothing within an object that clearly states what it is, its essence is not immediately tangible to us. Starting with something natural, think of an apple. There is nothing in the apple itself that says its name is "apple." None of the components of an apple, like the seeds, its skin, the flesh, the stem do not have printed on them "Hello, My name is Apple." The only way we can define what is an apple and what is not an apple is by its characteristics. We can say that apples are red, round, grow on trees, have seeds in the middle, and are generally sweet. I am not saying that this is what makes an apple an apple, but it is a rough definition of what we could consider to be an apple. For these characteristics to be defining of an apple, one has to have a group of followers or at least others who would tend to agree with your definition.
To complicate matters even further, think about the definition we provided for the apple: round, red, grows on trees, sweet. Embedded within these characteristics is another whole world of definitions, with the same issue of lacking a tangible, overtly obvious name. When you say something is red, for example, what does it mean to be red (if we get rid of all the shades of red that are and stick with a typical red, which itself is a problem because what is a normal red, but just go with it for now, huh?)? You could say that for something to be considered red, it has to have a certain hue, but hues are subjective. You could get a little more specific and claim that red falls on the shorter side of the visible light spectrum. This would be the empirical approach, but again the definition of red relies on a consensus of opinions. Therefore "Red" does not actually exist objectively, but only within our experiences and within this earthly realm.
You can do this exercise with just about any word and can never get to the objective reality of what it really means to be that thing without relying on human opinion and observation.
That is one fact of language that just totally blows my mind. Nothing objectively is what it is. Things are only things in so far as there are people to observe and describe them. Maybe, and probably most likely, I am making too many assumptions, but it seems to me that there is no foundational axiom, building block, grounding of being, foundational reality from which we derive all other things. I think I may have bugged this last part here up a little bit, making it confusing with all of my terms and phrases, but hopefully the point I was trying to make came across.
Another facet of language is the Babel problem. The Babel problem, of which many are already aware, deals with and tries to address the issue of the diverse and numerous languages we have on earth. The number of languages in the world is somewhere around 6,000 (and decreasing because some are very small and have only a few speakers left, and these few speakers are dying), but how did we come to have so many? Was there ever a time when we all spoke the same language? Why can someone from Taiwan not speak with someone from sub-Saharan Africa if they do not have language in common? How did this come to be?
This is something that has captivated my mind for many years. If we take, for example, the word "red," for example, and look at the way it is spelt and pronounced in different languages, it is amazing the wide variety that exists. Spanish: rojo. English: red. French: rouge. Albanian: i kuq. Finnish: punainen. Hungarian: piros. Get the picture? All of these words express the exact same concept, red, but all vary wildly in their pronunciation and pronunciation. I think this is even more evidence that there exists no universal language, that the entire world is subjective to our experiences and interpretation. If we all had the same experiences, would we not all express something the exact same way? I understand that language is more complicated than this, as it involves evolution of other languages, influences from these languages, etc. But just stop and think about this idea for a brief moment. It does not have to be too long, but think about the diversity of expression that revolves around a single word or concept. It is astounding.
It further amazes me that we can make sense of these scribbles on paper. I know that it may be difficult at the beginning to step outside of your upbringing and education and see these letters as nothing but scribbles, but try it some time. I think that you can appreciate it once you study a language with a script other than the Roman alphabet. For example, take Arabic. To those of us that speak a Western, Latin-based language (or at least written in the Latin script), Arabic looks like nothing but a bunch of lines and scribbles on a piece of paper. We wonder who would be able to understand that a line that has a dot on top is an "n" sound and if it has two dots underneath it it is a long "i" sound or a "y." But there are millions of people who read Arabic with no problems. They do not, presumable, think that their language is nothing but randomly drawn lines on a piece of paper. To them, it means something, it conveys their interpretations of reality, it gives them a common ground with those around them to discuss what happens to them and how they believe their world to be. To those whose primary language is Arabic, English probably looks like a bunch of lines as well. English lines look very different from Arabic lines, so one whose main language is Arabic probably thinks the same that English people think about Arabic; that English is a bunch of non-sense lines that no one could possibly understand. Yet we do. This observation astounds me at humankind's capacities. We are able to scribble something on the piece of paper and it means something to us. Imagine a complete alien were to come to planet Earth and look at what we do. That alien would have no idea what all of these lines mean. Where we see the letter "E" they see (assuming they have some sense of geometry and direction) a vertical line with three horizontal lines protruding to the right of this vertical line. It means absolutely nothing to them. To us, it is an essential building block of our understanding of the world.
If this has blown your mind, or it is too much for you to wrap your mind around, believe me, you are not alone. I have been thinking about this for a while and I still do not know what to make of it. It is a very large territory, language, and it is incredibly scary. Yet, at the same time, it is something that fascinates me. So take a break, and so will I, and think about these things, but not to the point of madness.
The topic today: language.
This is something that surrounds us and we encounter on a daily basis. By virtue of reading this, you are interacting with language. We are language-based creatures and need to express ourselves through words, movements, pictures, something. However, I want to here focus solely on the languages that are written (in turn read) and spoken (in turn heard).
Language and the theory or philosophy of language is an area that I have long wanted to delve into and explore, but have never had sufficient time to do so. Given this, all that follows is uneducated (for the most part) and has not been researched at all, unless mentioned. What follows are merely the things swimming around in my head at the moment or that have been doing so for some time.
This past semester I took a course in the philosophy department that was concerned with the history of ancient philosophy. We began with the first "philosopher," Thales, who believed that everything was water [ponder that for a moment...seems a little crazy, but give it some time to digest] and progressed to the biggies, Plato and Aristotle. In one of Aristotle's texts on logic (if I remember correctly, for those interested, it was in his work entitled De Interpretatione, or Of/On Interpretation), Aristotle discusses what a synonym, homonym, and other linguistic terms actually mean. Clearly articulating and revising definitions is something characteristic of Aristotle and his texts. After I read what he had to say about language, I stopped to think for a moment or two. What he said made a lot of sense on the surface and prompted more thoughts (I have not delved into the specifics of his thinking on these topics...that is for another day).
Think about how arbitrary language is.......
There is nothing within an object that clearly states what it is, its essence is not immediately tangible to us. Starting with something natural, think of an apple. There is nothing in the apple itself that says its name is "apple." None of the components of an apple, like the seeds, its skin, the flesh, the stem do not have printed on them "Hello, My name is Apple." The only way we can define what is an apple and what is not an apple is by its characteristics. We can say that apples are red, round, grow on trees, have seeds in the middle, and are generally sweet. I am not saying that this is what makes an apple an apple, but it is a rough definition of what we could consider to be an apple. For these characteristics to be defining of an apple, one has to have a group of followers or at least others who would tend to agree with your definition.
To complicate matters even further, think about the definition we provided for the apple: round, red, grows on trees, sweet. Embedded within these characteristics is another whole world of definitions, with the same issue of lacking a tangible, overtly obvious name. When you say something is red, for example, what does it mean to be red (if we get rid of all the shades of red that are and stick with a typical red, which itself is a problem because what is a normal red, but just go with it for now, huh?)? You could say that for something to be considered red, it has to have a certain hue, but hues are subjective. You could get a little more specific and claim that red falls on the shorter side of the visible light spectrum. This would be the empirical approach, but again the definition of red relies on a consensus of opinions. Therefore "Red" does not actually exist objectively, but only within our experiences and within this earthly realm.
You can do this exercise with just about any word and can never get to the objective reality of what it really means to be that thing without relying on human opinion and observation.
That is one fact of language that just totally blows my mind. Nothing objectively is what it is. Things are only things in so far as there are people to observe and describe them. Maybe, and probably most likely, I am making too many assumptions, but it seems to me that there is no foundational axiom, building block, grounding of being, foundational reality from which we derive all other things. I think I may have bugged this last part here up a little bit, making it confusing with all of my terms and phrases, but hopefully the point I was trying to make came across.
Another facet of language is the Babel problem. The Babel problem, of which many are already aware, deals with and tries to address the issue of the diverse and numerous languages we have on earth. The number of languages in the world is somewhere around 6,000 (and decreasing because some are very small and have only a few speakers left, and these few speakers are dying), but how did we come to have so many? Was there ever a time when we all spoke the same language? Why can someone from Taiwan not speak with someone from sub-Saharan Africa if they do not have language in common? How did this come to be?
This is something that has captivated my mind for many years. If we take, for example, the word "red," for example, and look at the way it is spelt and pronounced in different languages, it is amazing the wide variety that exists. Spanish: rojo. English: red. French: rouge. Albanian: i kuq. Finnish: punainen. Hungarian: piros. Get the picture? All of these words express the exact same concept, red, but all vary wildly in their pronunciation and pronunciation. I think this is even more evidence that there exists no universal language, that the entire world is subjective to our experiences and interpretation. If we all had the same experiences, would we not all express something the exact same way? I understand that language is more complicated than this, as it involves evolution of other languages, influences from these languages, etc. But just stop and think about this idea for a brief moment. It does not have to be too long, but think about the diversity of expression that revolves around a single word or concept. It is astounding.
It further amazes me that we can make sense of these scribbles on paper. I know that it may be difficult at the beginning to step outside of your upbringing and education and see these letters as nothing but scribbles, but try it some time. I think that you can appreciate it once you study a language with a script other than the Roman alphabet. For example, take Arabic. To those of us that speak a Western, Latin-based language (or at least written in the Latin script), Arabic looks like nothing but a bunch of lines and scribbles on a piece of paper. We wonder who would be able to understand that a line that has a dot on top is an "n" sound and if it has two dots underneath it it is a long "i" sound or a "y." But there are millions of people who read Arabic with no problems. They do not, presumable, think that their language is nothing but randomly drawn lines on a piece of paper. To them, it means something, it conveys their interpretations of reality, it gives them a common ground with those around them to discuss what happens to them and how they believe their world to be. To those whose primary language is Arabic, English probably looks like a bunch of lines as well. English lines look very different from Arabic lines, so one whose main language is Arabic probably thinks the same that English people think about Arabic; that English is a bunch of non-sense lines that no one could possibly understand. Yet we do. This observation astounds me at humankind's capacities. We are able to scribble something on the piece of paper and it means something to us. Imagine a complete alien were to come to planet Earth and look at what we do. That alien would have no idea what all of these lines mean. Where we see the letter "E" they see (assuming they have some sense of geometry and direction) a vertical line with three horizontal lines protruding to the right of this vertical line. It means absolutely nothing to them. To us, it is an essential building block of our understanding of the world.
If this has blown your mind, or it is too much for you to wrap your mind around, believe me, you are not alone. I have been thinking about this for a while and I still do not know what to make of it. It is a very large territory, language, and it is incredibly scary. Yet, at the same time, it is something that fascinates me. So take a break, and so will I, and think about these things, but not to the point of madness.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Political Ideals
Well, as mentioned in the last post, I am going to be continuing my investigation of the role of government and politics and attempt to put this work by Bertrand Russell in conversation with Thoreau's piece. Hopefully this will work.
One good quote from this work is the following: "For this reason the men who believe in force are the men whose thoughts and desires are preoccupied with material goods." I whole-heartedly agree with this observation and I immediately thought of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a U.S-led coalition. While many official reasons were put forth by the White House, over the years some alternate theories have risen in popularity to explain what really happened. One must be extremely cautious when reading these because some are so off the wall that they cannot be taken seriously, while others seem entirely possible. Bush claimed that he wished to enter Iraq to oust the malevolent dictator Saddam Hussein. By removing Saddam from power, a figure who had been in power for twenty-some years and had been, to put it colloquially, a pest to the American government. If one thinks back nearly a decade, he is the reason why Bush Sr. entered the region when his aggression towards Kuwait was taken to an intolerable level. Bush promised that by removing this man from power, that democracy, peace and stability in the Middle East would soon follow suit. Thus, the coalition was formed to forcibly enter Iraq. Not to immediately ensure democracy, peace and stability for the Iraqi people, but rather to secure oil interests near the Gulf and in southern Iraq/Kuwait. If those were disrupted, the flow of oil to the United States would lessen, thus plunging the economy into the tank. Thus, if we take Russell's observation and apply it to this situation, one can see that the U.S. was not interested in securing what it overtly promised (at least not at first). Once they used force to enter Iraq (which, granted, did not require a ton of force), the U.S. was after material items/gain, for men who believe in force are preoccupied with material goods (such as oil).
However, is this observation absolutely correct for every situation? I wondered and thought of the Wars of Religion in 16th century Europe. As one can assume from the name, these were religious wars fought between different sects of Christianity (mainly Catholics and Protestants) over which tradition was more correct and orthodox. There were clearly some spiritual, religious motives behind the use of force in these instances, so does that refute Russell's position? I think not because while a religious bent may have been a motivation for fighting, I do not think that it was the sole purpose for war. I believe the men leading these factions were also interested (to some degree) in acquiring land, wealth, fame, etc.
He briefly gives some "rules to live by" which include:
(1) be concerned with creative impulses rather than possessive impulses -- meaning that rather than being concerned with property and the acquisition thereof, be more concerned with spiritual, intellectual, and cultural achievements. I totally agree with this rule because I also think that we are too focused on making money that we tend to lack in other "creative" profits we can receive in this world, which ultimately tend to make everyone better off.
(2) have a reverence for others -- basically, respect others around you. This is definitely a rule that we instill in children from a young age, which ultimately makes many, if not all, grown individuals respectful of those around them.
(3) Respect for self and consciousness -- pretty self-explanatory. Respect yourself and the fact that you are a cognizant being.
Basically, then, what his rules boil down to are: respect yourself, respect others, and don't worry about the money, be more concerned with rewards that can benefit society in a different way.
Speaking of war and invasion, an interesting quote from him is the following: "War is recognized as an evil by an immense majority in every civilized country: but this recognition does not prevent war." We all know it is wrong and ought to be stopped, because that is the right thing to do, yet we are drawn to inactivity rather than action, which is something that Thoreau also brings to the fore in his piece on civil disobedience. Both of these men, then, are calling us to become more active citizens to create a better world for ourselves and our posterity.
I think this ought to suffice for today, but I will definitely be adding to this post in a continuation of this work of his. In the next section he will denounce capitalism and the wage system and attempts to point out why it is wrong and ought to be overthrown. Should make for an interesting discussion. Until next time!
One good quote from this work is the following: "For this reason the men who believe in force are the men whose thoughts and desires are preoccupied with material goods." I whole-heartedly agree with this observation and I immediately thought of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a U.S-led coalition. While many official reasons were put forth by the White House, over the years some alternate theories have risen in popularity to explain what really happened. One must be extremely cautious when reading these because some are so off the wall that they cannot be taken seriously, while others seem entirely possible. Bush claimed that he wished to enter Iraq to oust the malevolent dictator Saddam Hussein. By removing Saddam from power, a figure who had been in power for twenty-some years and had been, to put it colloquially, a pest to the American government. If one thinks back nearly a decade, he is the reason why Bush Sr. entered the region when his aggression towards Kuwait was taken to an intolerable level. Bush promised that by removing this man from power, that democracy, peace and stability in the Middle East would soon follow suit. Thus, the coalition was formed to forcibly enter Iraq. Not to immediately ensure democracy, peace and stability for the Iraqi people, but rather to secure oil interests near the Gulf and in southern Iraq/Kuwait. If those were disrupted, the flow of oil to the United States would lessen, thus plunging the economy into the tank. Thus, if we take Russell's observation and apply it to this situation, one can see that the U.S. was not interested in securing what it overtly promised (at least not at first). Once they used force to enter Iraq (which, granted, did not require a ton of force), the U.S. was after material items/gain, for men who believe in force are preoccupied with material goods (such as oil).
However, is this observation absolutely correct for every situation? I wondered and thought of the Wars of Religion in 16th century Europe. As one can assume from the name, these were religious wars fought between different sects of Christianity (mainly Catholics and Protestants) over which tradition was more correct and orthodox. There were clearly some spiritual, religious motives behind the use of force in these instances, so does that refute Russell's position? I think not because while a religious bent may have been a motivation for fighting, I do not think that it was the sole purpose for war. I believe the men leading these factions were also interested (to some degree) in acquiring land, wealth, fame, etc.
He briefly gives some "rules to live by" which include:
(1) be concerned with creative impulses rather than possessive impulses -- meaning that rather than being concerned with property and the acquisition thereof, be more concerned with spiritual, intellectual, and cultural achievements. I totally agree with this rule because I also think that we are too focused on making money that we tend to lack in other "creative" profits we can receive in this world, which ultimately tend to make everyone better off.
(2) have a reverence for others -- basically, respect others around you. This is definitely a rule that we instill in children from a young age, which ultimately makes many, if not all, grown individuals respectful of those around them.
(3) Respect for self and consciousness -- pretty self-explanatory. Respect yourself and the fact that you are a cognizant being.
Basically, then, what his rules boil down to are: respect yourself, respect others, and don't worry about the money, be more concerned with rewards that can benefit society in a different way.
Speaking of war and invasion, an interesting quote from him is the following: "War is recognized as an evil by an immense majority in every civilized country: but this recognition does not prevent war." We all know it is wrong and ought to be stopped, because that is the right thing to do, yet we are drawn to inactivity rather than action, which is something that Thoreau also brings to the fore in his piece on civil disobedience. Both of these men, then, are calling us to become more active citizens to create a better world for ourselves and our posterity.
I think this ought to suffice for today, but I will definitely be adding to this post in a continuation of this work of his. In the next section he will denounce capitalism and the wage system and attempts to point out why it is wrong and ought to be overthrown. Should make for an interesting discussion. Until next time!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Thoreau, Pt. 2
Onwards...
So, after getting through a majority of this essay, I hit this roadblock wherein Thoreau states: "I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a god place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad." I find this to be a bit troubling considering throughout the entirety of the essay, Thoreau is urging people to step up and challenge the government and the injustices it inflicts upon its citizens and other injustices in general. It seems as if he is also prescribing a model for the ideal society, which would be inherently good since it would be ideal (unless, of course, one wishes for a world of evil to exist). Thus, I have a problem with this man over this statement. There is nothing more to it, really, just something I found to be a bit inconsistent considering the rest of the paper.
In going along somewhat of the same lines as the previous paragraph, he also is a strong believer that society is all talk and no action, and what he thinks we ought to do is act rather than just sit and talk about it. This would also go against what he says earlier in the paper (as noted in the previous paragraph) because he claims that he is not on Earth to change the world, he is just meant to live in it. Maybe that is what he is meant to do. Maybe Thoreau personally is not meant to be active, yet he is meant to actively tell others that they ought to be active. It still seems to me that he is a hypocrite in this regard.
A big debate Katrina and I had after reading this and discussing it came from the following quote: "Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue: for money comes between a man and his objects." And another, just a few sentences later: "The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as that are called the 'means' are increased." The first quote Katrina had a major issue with because she asked if that meant the completely virtuous person would have to be dirt poor, with no money at all. I could understand where she was getting this from, but at the same time, the opposite end is not defined either. Thoreau, in this quote, does not seem to mention what a completely immoral person would be either. Thinking of it as a graph, with money on the x-axis and virtue on the y-axis, Katrina thought that the point (0,infinity) was included and was to be deemed the completely virtuous person. What I pointed out, after I disagreed with her, was that there is no such point as (infinity, 0), the completely immoral person. Therefore, it must start somewhere in the middle, or we ought to not think of it in terms of graphs at all. Maybe Thoreau did not intend for us to think of this in terms of a graph, but rather as merely the statement he makes in this essay.
Once we had that issue out of the way, we proceeded to talk about whether the meat of the sentence was true or not. I tended to believe that it was while Katrina thought otherwise. I thought that it was a well stated observation and held some validity. Thinking about many of the famous/rich people in our society, it seems to me that many of them, with their millions upon millions of dollars, do not do virtuous acts as often as the more moderately rich or middle-class or poor. While they donate millions of their dollars to charities, that does not make a person virtuous. Money is easy to give away, time is not. If they were to give some more of their time away, I think that would be a different story, but many simply give money as an easy and lazy way out of donating time. It seems to me that middle class folk cannot give away money as readily, but they can (and often do) give up some of their time to care for others or whatever. Basically, we determined that these quotes were referring to materialism and who is more materialistic. I (and Thoreau) claimed that the rich were more concerned with material items while the poor/middle class were more concerned with being good people (including to others). Katrina argued the opposite, that everyone (including those who are poor) are materialistic. I could also see the logic behind her reasoning here, as those who are not particularly well off in the financial field tend to aspire for material objects, which can be considered materialistic. There is definitely some validity there as well. Many of the people from the lower end of the economic pyramid tend to aspire for bigger, better, brighter items. So, after discussing this, we decided that agreeing to disagree would probably be the best course of action.
To conclude my post and the unit on Thoreau, I will pose a large question that I came to about halfway through this reading. I will also attempt to answer it, but not too in depth because...well...because I don't know what to think about it, quite frankly.
Anyhow, it seems quite obvious that Thoreau was really angry with the American government and its role in society and was decrying its injustices against loyal citizens, but at the same time, it seems that the message throughout the essay was optimistic, providing an answer to the question: What am I to do in this life? What is the purpose of living? I think that Thoreau, between the complaining, ranting, raving, and angsting has provided for us readers somewhat of a purpose/course of action in this life on Earth. I think Thoreau makes us challenge our apathy and inactivity and urges us to become active citizens of whichever nation to which we declare allegiance. Therefore, maybe he is also providing people with a sense of hope and usefulness in their lives because that is what a large portion of philosophy is, at least in my opinion. This question of what we are to do, etc. is a huge question that philosophy tries to provide answers to and tackle head-on. I dunno though. Maybe I am completely off my rocker here.
Stay tuned for the next installment and a reflection of Bertrand Russell essay concerning politics. 'Twas interesting and connected nicely with Thoreau.
So, after getting through a majority of this essay, I hit this roadblock wherein Thoreau states: "I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a god place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad." I find this to be a bit troubling considering throughout the entirety of the essay, Thoreau is urging people to step up and challenge the government and the injustices it inflicts upon its citizens and other injustices in general. It seems as if he is also prescribing a model for the ideal society, which would be inherently good since it would be ideal (unless, of course, one wishes for a world of evil to exist). Thus, I have a problem with this man over this statement. There is nothing more to it, really, just something I found to be a bit inconsistent considering the rest of the paper.
In going along somewhat of the same lines as the previous paragraph, he also is a strong believer that society is all talk and no action, and what he thinks we ought to do is act rather than just sit and talk about it. This would also go against what he says earlier in the paper (as noted in the previous paragraph) because he claims that he is not on Earth to change the world, he is just meant to live in it. Maybe that is what he is meant to do. Maybe Thoreau personally is not meant to be active, yet he is meant to actively tell others that they ought to be active. It still seems to me that he is a hypocrite in this regard.
A big debate Katrina and I had after reading this and discussing it came from the following quote: "Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue: for money comes between a man and his objects." And another, just a few sentences later: "The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as that are called the 'means' are increased." The first quote Katrina had a major issue with because she asked if that meant the completely virtuous person would have to be dirt poor, with no money at all. I could understand where she was getting this from, but at the same time, the opposite end is not defined either. Thoreau, in this quote, does not seem to mention what a completely immoral person would be either. Thinking of it as a graph, with money on the x-axis and virtue on the y-axis, Katrina thought that the point (0,infinity) was included and was to be deemed the completely virtuous person. What I pointed out, after I disagreed with her, was that there is no such point as (infinity, 0), the completely immoral person. Therefore, it must start somewhere in the middle, or we ought to not think of it in terms of graphs at all. Maybe Thoreau did not intend for us to think of this in terms of a graph, but rather as merely the statement he makes in this essay.
Once we had that issue out of the way, we proceeded to talk about whether the meat of the sentence was true or not. I tended to believe that it was while Katrina thought otherwise. I thought that it was a well stated observation and held some validity. Thinking about many of the famous/rich people in our society, it seems to me that many of them, with their millions upon millions of dollars, do not do virtuous acts as often as the more moderately rich or middle-class or poor. While they donate millions of their dollars to charities, that does not make a person virtuous. Money is easy to give away, time is not. If they were to give some more of their time away, I think that would be a different story, but many simply give money as an easy and lazy way out of donating time. It seems to me that middle class folk cannot give away money as readily, but they can (and often do) give up some of their time to care for others or whatever. Basically, we determined that these quotes were referring to materialism and who is more materialistic. I (and Thoreau) claimed that the rich were more concerned with material items while the poor/middle class were more concerned with being good people (including to others). Katrina argued the opposite, that everyone (including those who are poor) are materialistic. I could also see the logic behind her reasoning here, as those who are not particularly well off in the financial field tend to aspire for material objects, which can be considered materialistic. There is definitely some validity there as well. Many of the people from the lower end of the economic pyramid tend to aspire for bigger, better, brighter items. So, after discussing this, we decided that agreeing to disagree would probably be the best course of action.
To conclude my post and the unit on Thoreau, I will pose a large question that I came to about halfway through this reading. I will also attempt to answer it, but not too in depth because...well...because I don't know what to think about it, quite frankly.
Anyhow, it seems quite obvious that Thoreau was really angry with the American government and its role in society and was decrying its injustices against loyal citizens, but at the same time, it seems that the message throughout the essay was optimistic, providing an answer to the question: What am I to do in this life? What is the purpose of living? I think that Thoreau, between the complaining, ranting, raving, and angsting has provided for us readers somewhat of a purpose/course of action in this life on Earth. I think Thoreau makes us challenge our apathy and inactivity and urges us to become active citizens of whichever nation to which we declare allegiance. Therefore, maybe he is also providing people with a sense of hope and usefulness in their lives because that is what a large portion of philosophy is, at least in my opinion. This question of what we are to do, etc. is a huge question that philosophy tries to provide answers to and tackle head-on. I dunno though. Maybe I am completely off my rocker here.
Stay tuned for the next installment and a reflection of Bertrand Russell essay concerning politics. 'Twas interesting and connected nicely with Thoreau.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Civil Disobedience
As I mentioned in my last post, I am planning on reading some philosophical works and then posting my reflections on here. Dunno if anyone is really going to care about it, but that was the purpose of this blog in the first place, so I shall therefore continue to uphold its reputation as such. As can be inferred from the title, I read Henry David Thoreau's 1849 essay "Civil Disobedience." What follows are my thoughts I had while reading the essay and some further expansions of some ideas.
Throughout the entire essay, Thoreau continually relates back to the Mexican-American War, which he despised. He also has a big qualm with slavery, another topic that he uses to illustrate some of his points unrelated to slavery and also in direct relation to slavery.
At the outset of the essay, Thoreau makes a bold statement and exclaims his belief in the maxim "That government is best which governs not at all." I immediately thought about what political affiliation he would have in the modern day. I think that this would put him at the libertarian end of things, wanting the government to keep their hands completely off society. I also assumed that he would be opposed to socialism, but what about communism? I think it is the common misconception that communism is also a super tight and strict form of government, but according to Marx, communism is a system without government. If there is no government, then there is no governing taking place, which is something Thoreau seems to be desiring. Regardless of what political party Thoreau belongs to, it no doubt raises the question: why would we want to get rid of the government? Thoreau goes into more depth with his answer to this, but I believe one of the main points he makes is that government functions merely as a expedient, that is to say, all it does is speed things up. Many would argue that government, specifically bureaucratic government (such as the U.S.), tends to bog down the system with its immense amount of paperwork and formalities. However, Thoreau viewed it as being a service which speeds up processes.
Another of his major points is that society is too mechanized, which is definitely something that ought to change. He states, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." As the title of the essay suggests, Thoreau was calling for open warfare on the law and established order of the U.S. government at the time. He said that the law frequently produces injustices to everyone, to which we ought to rise against and stop respecting the law. If something is morally objectionable, then one ought to raise a fuss about it and then disobey it because you must be a man first, and a subject later. If you are merely a subject, I believe Thoreau would imagine you to be at a loss for your humanity because you become part of the machine rather than a unique individual human being. He uses the example of soldiers who frequently do things they would normally never do, but do them anyways because they are commanded to do so. They compromise their own morals in order to retain respect for the government and the law. I think I would be in accord with Thoreau on this stance because there is no government in the world that I would follow if it made me do something that went against any of my morals. I prize my humanity too dearly to be subjected to immoral activities imposed upon me by the government.
Another one of his main points is that people are hesitant to act and decry morally reprehensible activities. He relates this back to the war and slavery: "There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them." Clearly there are many individuals who find slavery and the war to be foolish ideas, yet no one (as of then) was rebelling against the government. He claims that "they will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil." Rather than taking the individual initiative, they are going to wait for someone else to call out the government. To be perfectly honest, after reading this I found this statement to be incredibly true for myself. Typically, I find myself to be calling out immoral activities, but in the grand scheme of things, I think that I could definitely improve in this regard.
Throughout this piece, Thoreau claims that the government ought to bow down to individual wishes made by its individual citizens. That is to say, rather than going with majority sentiment, a proper government ought to listen to every single individual and accommodate them. ((Side note: This is, in my opinion, a rather silly idea because then no consistency can be reached, as appeasing Joe Blow will likely anger Jane Doe.)) We got into a discussion of politics and how I thought that Thoreau was angry (and would still be angry) with the two-party system we have in the United States. Yes, we do have some Independents in our government, but overall, the political environment of the U.S. has been dominated by Repubs and Dems. This stands in contrast to many European parliamentary systems (notably the UK, France, Russia, Germany, India [yeah, not European, but once ruled by Europeans and therefore greatly influenced by European politics]) wherein various parties have a say in government. While sometimes a single party can obtain a majority in parliament, it is more often than not the case that parties must form coalitions in order for the government to function and get things done. Under coalition governments, if one member of the government dissents and goes against another party, thus withdrawing their seats in that government, the parliament is dissolved, and new elections must be cast. My point in bringing this example up is, in a certain sense, two-fold. First, it seems that in these European parliamentary systems (often referred to simply as multi-party systems, as these systems exist in countries outside of Europe) more individualized voices can be heard, whereas in the U.S. you have to side with either the Red or the Blue, you do not get the pink, purple, yellow, green, and tan options to choose from. So, while it is not a perfect system, multi-party systems, I would imagine, would tend to please Thoreau. While this is no perfect solution to the problem Thoreau is concerned with, it does increase individualization of government. Additionally, it also gives more individual right to govern, as exemplified by the simple fact that if one member of the government dissents, the government is dissolved and new elections must be called. In conclusion, then, it seems that Thoreau was really angry with the American political atmosphere and its lack of individualization and personal catering to its citizens.
I think I may stop there for this post, as I am noticing it already getting extremely long. I definitely have more on Thoreau and other philosophers as well, so be prepared and bring your thinking caps.
Throughout the entire essay, Thoreau continually relates back to the Mexican-American War, which he despised. He also has a big qualm with slavery, another topic that he uses to illustrate some of his points unrelated to slavery and also in direct relation to slavery.
At the outset of the essay, Thoreau makes a bold statement and exclaims his belief in the maxim "That government is best which governs not at all." I immediately thought about what political affiliation he would have in the modern day. I think that this would put him at the libertarian end of things, wanting the government to keep their hands completely off society. I also assumed that he would be opposed to socialism, but what about communism? I think it is the common misconception that communism is also a super tight and strict form of government, but according to Marx, communism is a system without government. If there is no government, then there is no governing taking place, which is something Thoreau seems to be desiring. Regardless of what political party Thoreau belongs to, it no doubt raises the question: why would we want to get rid of the government? Thoreau goes into more depth with his answer to this, but I believe one of the main points he makes is that government functions merely as a expedient, that is to say, all it does is speed things up. Many would argue that government, specifically bureaucratic government (such as the U.S.), tends to bog down the system with its immense amount of paperwork and formalities. However, Thoreau viewed it as being a service which speeds up processes.
Another of his major points is that society is too mechanized, which is definitely something that ought to change. He states, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." As the title of the essay suggests, Thoreau was calling for open warfare on the law and established order of the U.S. government at the time. He said that the law frequently produces injustices to everyone, to which we ought to rise against and stop respecting the law. If something is morally objectionable, then one ought to raise a fuss about it and then disobey it because you must be a man first, and a subject later. If you are merely a subject, I believe Thoreau would imagine you to be at a loss for your humanity because you become part of the machine rather than a unique individual human being. He uses the example of soldiers who frequently do things they would normally never do, but do them anyways because they are commanded to do so. They compromise their own morals in order to retain respect for the government and the law. I think I would be in accord with Thoreau on this stance because there is no government in the world that I would follow if it made me do something that went against any of my morals. I prize my humanity too dearly to be subjected to immoral activities imposed upon me by the government.
Another one of his main points is that people are hesitant to act and decry morally reprehensible activities. He relates this back to the war and slavery: "There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them." Clearly there are many individuals who find slavery and the war to be foolish ideas, yet no one (as of then) was rebelling against the government. He claims that "they will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil." Rather than taking the individual initiative, they are going to wait for someone else to call out the government. To be perfectly honest, after reading this I found this statement to be incredibly true for myself. Typically, I find myself to be calling out immoral activities, but in the grand scheme of things, I think that I could definitely improve in this regard.
There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote.When Katrina and I were discussing this essay, we both came to this passage and highlighted it and actually went on some wild tangents that Thoreau never discusses in this essay. One of the tough questions we had to deal with is whether or not morality and morals are inherent in human beings. Katrina was adamant that they were, but I was skeptical. As she explained her reasoning, she explained how the groups we are part of tend to shape our morals. An example of this, though not used by Katrina during our discussion, is Christianity. There are certain Christian ethics that people tend to adhere to because of their membership of the larger Christian community. However, I quickly pointed out that this means that our morals are shaped by society then. We are not ourselves knowledgeable about the differences between right and wrong. We determine what is right and wrong by living within a community and being surrounded by people who teach us morals. We are not born with this inherent ability to make a distinction between moral and immoral, right and wrong. I believe, if memory serves me right, that we agreed to disagree on that topic. However, it raised another wildly off topic discussion.
Throughout this piece, Thoreau claims that the government ought to bow down to individual wishes made by its individual citizens. That is to say, rather than going with majority sentiment, a proper government ought to listen to every single individual and accommodate them. ((Side note: This is, in my opinion, a rather silly idea because then no consistency can be reached, as appeasing Joe Blow will likely anger Jane Doe.)) We got into a discussion of politics and how I thought that Thoreau was angry (and would still be angry) with the two-party system we have in the United States. Yes, we do have some Independents in our government, but overall, the political environment of the U.S. has been dominated by Repubs and Dems. This stands in contrast to many European parliamentary systems (notably the UK, France, Russia, Germany, India [yeah, not European, but once ruled by Europeans and therefore greatly influenced by European politics]) wherein various parties have a say in government. While sometimes a single party can obtain a majority in parliament, it is more often than not the case that parties must form coalitions in order for the government to function and get things done. Under coalition governments, if one member of the government dissents and goes against another party, thus withdrawing their seats in that government, the parliament is dissolved, and new elections must be cast. My point in bringing this example up is, in a certain sense, two-fold. First, it seems that in these European parliamentary systems (often referred to simply as multi-party systems, as these systems exist in countries outside of Europe) more individualized voices can be heard, whereas in the U.S. you have to side with either the Red or the Blue, you do not get the pink, purple, yellow, green, and tan options to choose from. So, while it is not a perfect system, multi-party systems, I would imagine, would tend to please Thoreau. While this is no perfect solution to the problem Thoreau is concerned with, it does increase individualization of government. Additionally, it also gives more individual right to govern, as exemplified by the simple fact that if one member of the government dissents, the government is dissolved and new elections must be called. In conclusion, then, it seems that Thoreau was really angry with the American political atmosphere and its lack of individualization and personal catering to its citizens.
I think I may stop there for this post, as I am noticing it already getting extremely long. I definitely have more on Thoreau and other philosophers as well, so be prepared and bring your thinking caps.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
End of Year Review
Alright, it has been quite a while since my last post and as I mentioned in it, I was going to provide a bit of a year review and reflection time. So, here goes.
First semester at Drake. What can I say? It was a lovely time while it lasted. Really. It was. I was sort of sad by the end of the semester when I was just starting to get to know more people and I was leaving. Drake allowed me to make some guy friends (which is sorta strange and a never-before seen feat for me). Anyhow, I made some great friends and was able to open myself up to meeting other people. I remember when I first got there last August I was feeling really good about the opportunities to meet people. I had to first open myself up a bit more and be a bit more outgoing, which was sort of a stretch for me considering I am one of those people that needs to be talked to first before I start really talking to you. That is to say, once you start talking with me, I generally will not shut up. If that doesn't occur, then I will probably never talk to you. I realized that this is a silly policy and have tried to reverse that as much as possible this year. I think I have done a pretty good job because now I am able to talk to many people easily, which should definitely come in handy in the future, especially in the workplace. But yeah, the first month was pretty cool. I met a lot of awesome people, professors, and was able to be independent...I mean, truly independent. As the semester progressed, I became closer and closer friends with people on my floor and it was really awesome. I am still in frequent contact with these people (minus a few) and we are keeping each other updated on stuff, so it looks like a good possibility that these are friends for life. The semester went on, I became more social and started going to this Philosophical discussion thing at Drake that my Ethics prof told me about. I started going and started thinking about the larger picture. That once a week discussion combined with the extensive reading assignments of my actual philosophy class really pushed me to become a more critical thinker, which came in handy especially in the form of this blog. I was also told at the end of the semester by my ethics prof that I would be a great addition to the philosophy department. I doubted that considering I do not have the innate critical thinking skills that many in that department seem to have. However, I do enjoy my dabblings in philosophy now. I also learned a great deal about global politics in my comparative politics class. After taking the history of the modern Middle East, the unit on Egypt in that class really assisted in my understanding of the countries around it and especially the revolution the country experienced in February. I really enjoyed that course and I really enjoy thinking about politics. I have even thought recently about changing to a poli sci major, but on second thought it is a poor choice, in my opinion, because of my poor performance in econ. But, you never know what the future holds for certain, eh? My FYS course got me really excited about the Balkans, a region that I knew little about until this course. Having this knowledge also helped me in the Middle East history course because we talked about the Ottoman Empire, which the Balkans were part of for more than 200 years. I also enjoyed the literature aspect of this course and it has pushed me to think more deeply about literature I read. I even entertained the idea of pursuing something with English literature, but I crossed that off my list because it is far too interpretive and to a certain degree ambiguous. Sociology last semester was sort of an interesting class, but it was too easy and did not challenge me enough.
Aside from the academics of last semester, I also learned many important socializing skills, as I have already briefly discussed. Overall, the first semester was incredible. I would not change it for the world.
But now I am at Luther, and loving it even more. There are so many opportunities for scholarship that I was never aware of at Drake. There are incredible amounts of interesting lecture topics, academic opportunities, and a sense of academic and social community, whereas Drake mostly felt like living at a hotel. My courses this semester were really interesting and assisted me in developing my interests a ton. I took a religion course during J-Term and absolutely loved it. It got me so excited, even though it was a lot of speculation and guesswork. Then during the spring semester, I took intro. to the Bible and learned even more about Christianity and it has sparked my interest even further. I am really interested in studying the historical interaction of religion with society. My Bible prof. really liked me and even talked to me about becoming a religion major or minor, which I thought would not fit within my schedule, but now it does. Thus, I am a religion minor (for the moment...a lot of this depends on the availability of courses and whatnot). My modern history of the Middle East, as I have already demonstrated in the previous section, really linked up to a lot of the stuff I did last semester and even (given the modern time period in which we focused) enhanced my current political understanding of the region. It was really useful and we talked about a lot of relevant topics (including the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, and Iran). Good stuff. I was a bit wary at first about taking this course because I was not sure that I wanted to really study anything other than European history, but I am so glad I did. As I said, it enhanced my understanding of current events, but it also increased my knowledge of Islam. I came into the course with a lot of holes in my knowledge of Islam, as virtually all I heard about Islam was little tidbits and factoids. I held a very vague picture of this intricate religious tradition, but after a semester of talking about the interplay between the state and Islam, I have become aware of the complexities of Islam. One cannot simply boil down something as complex as Islam to a few basic beliefs. I remember a lecture I went to entitled "Was Jesus a Muslim?" and the lecturer (my J-Term prof, actually) said that anyone familiar in the least bit with Islam would probably know about the 5 Pillars of Islam. However, when one generally thinks of these pillars as principles that basically boil down the religion to 5 easy tenants. However, the analogy that he used, which he heard from some imam, was that the 5 Pillars of Islam provide a framework from which the entire religion is formed around. But at any rate, I learned a great deal about Islam. Paideia (a combo of history and English) was Paideia. It was reading and writing. Pretty basic. Pretty boring and even though it was supposed to be highly discussion-based, it truly was lacking in that department. Finally, my Spanish course. Super nice professor. SUPER nice. Really simple class though. This prof (named Rita Tejada or simply Tejada) recommended me for a spot in the Language Learning Center (LLC) wherein I can help students with their Spanish homework and do assorted other things and get paid for it. Pretty exciting stuff. She also said that I can speak Spanish really well and after a semester of immersion abroad (required for the major) I should have a pretty darn authentic accent down, which makes me happy because that is something I have been striving for for many years.
At any rate, this semester was pretty academically easy, but extremely informative. Aside from courses, I have also been participating in another philosophical society/discussion thing, enhancing even further my understanding of various famous philosophers, ideas, concepts, and world-views. I will be doing some independent (and with Katrina) studying of pretty well-known philosophers and then probably be posting my reflections on them here, so be on the lookout for that this summer. The social side of this semester was pretty awesome. I got accepted into Katrina's group of friends pretty easily and have some pretty good relationships with a lot of the people in that group, but I have also had the chance to make some good friends on the side. Ali from DQ is still a really good friend, and I managed to make friends with Jenni (another girl on Katrina's floor) and then my roomie for next year, Cody. I am really excited to room with Cody because he seems to be a totally awesome dude and we should have a fun year.
Anyhow, this post is getting long. Look forward to some more philosophical insights this summer.
First semester at Drake. What can I say? It was a lovely time while it lasted. Really. It was. I was sort of sad by the end of the semester when I was just starting to get to know more people and I was leaving. Drake allowed me to make some guy friends (which is sorta strange and a never-before seen feat for me). Anyhow, I made some great friends and was able to open myself up to meeting other people. I remember when I first got there last August I was feeling really good about the opportunities to meet people. I had to first open myself up a bit more and be a bit more outgoing, which was sort of a stretch for me considering I am one of those people that needs to be talked to first before I start really talking to you. That is to say, once you start talking with me, I generally will not shut up. If that doesn't occur, then I will probably never talk to you. I realized that this is a silly policy and have tried to reverse that as much as possible this year. I think I have done a pretty good job because now I am able to talk to many people easily, which should definitely come in handy in the future, especially in the workplace. But yeah, the first month was pretty cool. I met a lot of awesome people, professors, and was able to be independent...I mean, truly independent. As the semester progressed, I became closer and closer friends with people on my floor and it was really awesome. I am still in frequent contact with these people (minus a few) and we are keeping each other updated on stuff, so it looks like a good possibility that these are friends for life. The semester went on, I became more social and started going to this Philosophical discussion thing at Drake that my Ethics prof told me about. I started going and started thinking about the larger picture. That once a week discussion combined with the extensive reading assignments of my actual philosophy class really pushed me to become a more critical thinker, which came in handy especially in the form of this blog. I was also told at the end of the semester by my ethics prof that I would be a great addition to the philosophy department. I doubted that considering I do not have the innate critical thinking skills that many in that department seem to have. However, I do enjoy my dabblings in philosophy now. I also learned a great deal about global politics in my comparative politics class. After taking the history of the modern Middle East, the unit on Egypt in that class really assisted in my understanding of the countries around it and especially the revolution the country experienced in February. I really enjoyed that course and I really enjoy thinking about politics. I have even thought recently about changing to a poli sci major, but on second thought it is a poor choice, in my opinion, because of my poor performance in econ. But, you never know what the future holds for certain, eh? My FYS course got me really excited about the Balkans, a region that I knew little about until this course. Having this knowledge also helped me in the Middle East history course because we talked about the Ottoman Empire, which the Balkans were part of for more than 200 years. I also enjoyed the literature aspect of this course and it has pushed me to think more deeply about literature I read. I even entertained the idea of pursuing something with English literature, but I crossed that off my list because it is far too interpretive and to a certain degree ambiguous. Sociology last semester was sort of an interesting class, but it was too easy and did not challenge me enough.
Aside from the academics of last semester, I also learned many important socializing skills, as I have already briefly discussed. Overall, the first semester was incredible. I would not change it for the world.
But now I am at Luther, and loving it even more. There are so many opportunities for scholarship that I was never aware of at Drake. There are incredible amounts of interesting lecture topics, academic opportunities, and a sense of academic and social community, whereas Drake mostly felt like living at a hotel. My courses this semester were really interesting and assisted me in developing my interests a ton. I took a religion course during J-Term and absolutely loved it. It got me so excited, even though it was a lot of speculation and guesswork. Then during the spring semester, I took intro. to the Bible and learned even more about Christianity and it has sparked my interest even further. I am really interested in studying the historical interaction of religion with society. My Bible prof. really liked me and even talked to me about becoming a religion major or minor, which I thought would not fit within my schedule, but now it does. Thus, I am a religion minor (for the moment...a lot of this depends on the availability of courses and whatnot). My modern history of the Middle East, as I have already demonstrated in the previous section, really linked up to a lot of the stuff I did last semester and even (given the modern time period in which we focused) enhanced my current political understanding of the region. It was really useful and we talked about a lot of relevant topics (including the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, and Iran). Good stuff. I was a bit wary at first about taking this course because I was not sure that I wanted to really study anything other than European history, but I am so glad I did. As I said, it enhanced my understanding of current events, but it also increased my knowledge of Islam. I came into the course with a lot of holes in my knowledge of Islam, as virtually all I heard about Islam was little tidbits and factoids. I held a very vague picture of this intricate religious tradition, but after a semester of talking about the interplay between the state and Islam, I have become aware of the complexities of Islam. One cannot simply boil down something as complex as Islam to a few basic beliefs. I remember a lecture I went to entitled "Was Jesus a Muslim?" and the lecturer (my J-Term prof, actually) said that anyone familiar in the least bit with Islam would probably know about the 5 Pillars of Islam. However, when one generally thinks of these pillars as principles that basically boil down the religion to 5 easy tenants. However, the analogy that he used, which he heard from some imam, was that the 5 Pillars of Islam provide a framework from which the entire religion is formed around. But at any rate, I learned a great deal about Islam. Paideia (a combo of history and English) was Paideia. It was reading and writing. Pretty basic. Pretty boring and even though it was supposed to be highly discussion-based, it truly was lacking in that department. Finally, my Spanish course. Super nice professor. SUPER nice. Really simple class though. This prof (named Rita Tejada or simply Tejada) recommended me for a spot in the Language Learning Center (LLC) wherein I can help students with their Spanish homework and do assorted other things and get paid for it. Pretty exciting stuff. She also said that I can speak Spanish really well and after a semester of immersion abroad (required for the major) I should have a pretty darn authentic accent down, which makes me happy because that is something I have been striving for for many years.
At any rate, this semester was pretty academically easy, but extremely informative. Aside from courses, I have also been participating in another philosophical society/discussion thing, enhancing even further my understanding of various famous philosophers, ideas, concepts, and world-views. I will be doing some independent (and with Katrina) studying of pretty well-known philosophers and then probably be posting my reflections on them here, so be on the lookout for that this summer. The social side of this semester was pretty awesome. I got accepted into Katrina's group of friends pretty easily and have some pretty good relationships with a lot of the people in that group, but I have also had the chance to make some good friends on the side. Ali from DQ is still a really good friend, and I managed to make friends with Jenni (another girl on Katrina's floor) and then my roomie for next year, Cody. I am really excited to room with Cody because he seems to be a totally awesome dude and we should have a fun year.
Anyhow, this post is getting long. Look forward to some more philosophical insights this summer.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Nostalgia
I was going through my music last night when I remembered something that I have thought about for a long time. You know how people remember where they were when significant things happened in their life? Such examples include the assassination of JFK and 9/11. Well, I have somewhat of the same concept here, except it is through music. There are some songs and artists that remind me of my past experiences and I think back to them and remember them quite vividly. That is to say, as soon as the song comes on and I recognize it, I immediately think about the moment which I associate with them. This usually takes only a matter of seconds before the hardcore nostalgia kicks in. So, as I was going through my music last night, I decided to make a list of individual songs, albums, and artists that remind me of different people, places, and experiences. This is by no means an exhaustive list, rather merely representative of this phenomenon I am talking about:
Entire Sci-Fi Crimes CD by Chevelle -- University of Minnesota, fall of my senior year of high school, studying/reading my history textbook outside on the West Bank
Fall Out Boy -- bus rides in middle school, especially with Haily Hansen
Girl Talk -- Erik and Greg from Drake University
Jonas Brothers -- Duluth trip when the band was popular with Marissa Olsen
"Closer to Habit" by Allele -- driving to the University of Minnesota in the spring of my senior year
"Luna" by Juanes -- for some reason, cleaning at DQ with Tho
Led Zeppelin -- the movie "School of Rock" starring Jack Black
Linkin Park -- walking to the bus stop and waiting for it to arrive in my old neighborhood with Ryan Garves
"Union" by The Black Eyed Peas -- 8th grade Honors English class (we used it in a video concerning the war in Iraq I believe)
Panic! At The Disco (especially the first CD) -- Haily Hansen's house during the summers during my middle school years
Good Charlotte -- my karaoke incident in the car on a road trip to Indiana I believe
Mayday Parade -- January 2010 when I was in Florida
"Mockingbird" by Eminem -- one of Amanda's soccer practices when she was younger
"Crazy Bitch" by Buckcherry -- Gina at DQ. Now as ironic as that sounds, I was thinking about her dancing to the song. However, after that memory popped into my head, I found it quite ironic that the title of the song fit her person so well.
Dave Matthews Band -- Cheryl Gustafson at Lighthouse
Bullet For My Valentine -- driving to Katrina's house, blasting their music.
"Umbrella" by Rihanna -- CJ Sulzle and my first year/(first week?) at Lighthouse
Shinedown -- Ryan Garves and even more specifically, the time I went to his cabin and we listened to their stuff. This was a long time ago, like middle school days.
Red Jumpsuit Apparatus -- Fire Emblem. I used to listen to them and play Fire Emblem (which is an awesome game, by the way) on my DS a lot when I was younger.
I thought that I would post something since I have not done so in a while, even though this post is probably not as insightful as my others. However, I will be posting again in a few weeks for sure, after school is over, to evaluate my year, so look forward to that. Only one full week of school left, then finals week, then home and enslavement at DQ for the summer. Huzzah!
¡Hasta la próxima vez!
Entire Sci-Fi Crimes CD by Chevelle -- University of Minnesota, fall of my senior year of high school, studying/reading my history textbook outside on the West Bank
Fall Out Boy -- bus rides in middle school, especially with Haily Hansen
Girl Talk -- Erik and Greg from Drake University
Jonas Brothers -- Duluth trip when the band was popular with Marissa Olsen
"Closer to Habit" by Allele -- driving to the University of Minnesota in the spring of my senior year
"Luna" by Juanes -- for some reason, cleaning at DQ with Tho
Led Zeppelin -- the movie "School of Rock" starring Jack Black
Linkin Park -- walking to the bus stop and waiting for it to arrive in my old neighborhood with Ryan Garves
"Union" by The Black Eyed Peas -- 8th grade Honors English class (we used it in a video concerning the war in Iraq I believe)
Panic! At The Disco (especially the first CD) -- Haily Hansen's house during the summers during my middle school years
Good Charlotte -- my karaoke incident in the car on a road trip to Indiana I believe
Mayday Parade -- January 2010 when I was in Florida
"Mockingbird" by Eminem -- one of Amanda's soccer practices when she was younger
"Crazy Bitch" by Buckcherry -- Gina at DQ. Now as ironic as that sounds, I was thinking about her dancing to the song. However, after that memory popped into my head, I found it quite ironic that the title of the song fit her person so well.
Dave Matthews Band -- Cheryl Gustafson at Lighthouse
Bullet For My Valentine -- driving to Katrina's house, blasting their music.
"Umbrella" by Rihanna -- CJ Sulzle and my first year/(first week?) at Lighthouse
Shinedown -- Ryan Garves and even more specifically, the time I went to his cabin and we listened to their stuff. This was a long time ago, like middle school days.
Red Jumpsuit Apparatus -- Fire Emblem. I used to listen to them and play Fire Emblem (which is an awesome game, by the way) on my DS a lot when I was younger.
I thought that I would post something since I have not done so in a while, even though this post is probably not as insightful as my others. However, I will be posting again in a few weeks for sure, after school is over, to evaluate my year, so look forward to that. Only one full week of school left, then finals week, then home and enslavement at DQ for the summer. Huzzah!
¡Hasta la próxima vez!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)