“Which is the most universal human characteristic: fear, or laziness?” (Waking Life)
For a while, this made me think about which was which, and when I tried to figure out it's "meaning", that just confused me more.
I can't imagine laziness being the most universal human characteristic. I'd like to think so, just because that would be a nice cop out, but really, it's not at all. It's fear which makes us lazy, the fear of things good and bad. Fear drives us to hide behind that thing we call "laziness," but without fear, how many lazy people would there actually be? The fear of recognition, though it seems like a silly thing, is what can hold people back and keep them from putting their all into things. The fear of making a mistake keeps people from trying to begin with. Fear is hard to overcome. Fear is what we like to pretend we don't have. But that's one of the big things that make us just like everything else in the world, everything else that's alive. If we didn't fear, then we'd probably be closer to vampires than humans; remnants of life; dead, but still alive. But fear also causes the impulses to overcome it. Laziness can be overcome simply, but just getting up, or actually doing whatever it is you've been putting off. Laziness is easy to beat. Fear? Not so much. Fear is much more of a mental thing, and it holds an unbelievable power over us. Mental restraints are much more powerful than physical. Physical restraints only keep our bodies, these things that harbour our souls, from doing things. They can't directly affect your mind. Mental restraints, however, can affect you mentally and physically. You need a mind to move, you need the motivation to get up and go. If that motivation is hidden by a fear, then you're left with only one thing to do: overcome the fear. Unless you overcome it, well, you're stuck. You can do other things, go around the obstacle and start a different path, but you'll never be able to move on in that same direction. That chance is basically gone.
Laziness, that's not a real restraint. Laziness is just, "I don't want to do that." It's fear without reason. Fear is, "I don't want to do that because..." Fear gives a reason, and there's always a reason. We as people don't work right if we don't have reasons. We don't simply not do something, that's not how it goes. That may be the excuse we use, but that is not true. There's always a reason, no matter how silly, strange, or insignificant that reason may be. Laziness is basically the cop out for what we don't want to recognize as fear. Admitting that we're lazy is easy, but admitting fear? That takes guts.
"Sanity is a madness put to good uses; waking life is a dream controlled." (Santayana)
Honestly, I don't particularly agree with this.
First of all, sanity is not a madness. I suppose that if you were crazy to the point that you produced logic out of your madness, then sure, that's a kind of sanity. Sanity is not a madness put to good uses, that's just wrong. The words are the exact opposite of each other. Sanity does not derive itself from madness. Madness comes from a lack of sanity, from being insane. I really disagree with this.
And "waking life is a dream controlled?" What does that mean, even? That we control life? Because we do not. Life is controlled by no human force, it is beyond us. If this is referring to God, then yes, God controls our waking life. We do not. Dreams, though, those are what we control, though we are not always aware of that control. Dreams are inspired by something, and then controlled by our bodies and minds. They are not controlled outside of the individual, because they exist purely in the individual. Waking life, that's not a dream controlled. Dreams pertain to one person. Waking life doesn't. Everything we do in our waking life affects everything else in the world. An action might have a small, insignificant effect, but then again, it might change the world. We don't have any control over how everyone else perceives us, on how they react to us, on how they live. Control is in the hands of someone else, and in my opinion that is God. But according to God, we have all been given free will. He doesn't control us. He may control the non-living, and the natural objects around us, but he does not control us.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
In Issac Asimov’s “Lecture on Humanity”, given in 1973, he makes many predictions about the 21st century. He says, among other things, we’ll need population control, a shift in our view of education, a change in food production, and we’ll have to realize “we’re a world without war” (10).
I rather agree with Asimov's predictions, not so much that they have come into effect but that they are what we need. Essentially, if these predicitons had been realized by others at an earlier time, we may have been currently leading easier lives. The fact is that there have not been overall understandings and realizations on these sorts of things. More or less, people have been a bit too focused on the things that pertain to their own lives rather than the world. Many people exist in their own exostential mentalities, where they care very little for anything that may have harmful or negative effects on the world. It's an issue of ignorance.
Population control is really somewhat self-explanatory. The world's population limit is predicted to be WELL under 10billion, and with the population rising as dramatically as it had been during the 1900's, this posed a major threat to humanity. Boom-and-bust was definitely a contemplated theory. It seems though that as the 21st century came about, the next generation of parents were limiting their households. Yes, there are people with two or three (or nine) children, but for the most part, average is 1 or 2. This has definitely helped to at least slow the population increase problem, if not to begin reversing it. For any real changes to be made in population, though, there would have to be very explicitly written laws, which would be violating many human rights. Who is to say that a woman can not have as many children as she wishes? While personally I feel no threat by this law, because I have no intention of increasing the population ever, there are definitely women out there who want to have lots and lots of babies. Restricting women from bearing children would lead to more problems than most have ever fathomed. And not only the issue with women, but the fact that many cultures will be under the influence that we are trying to wipe them out by inflicting these laws upon them. So, while population control is a definitive issue, it is not going to be solved anytime soon unless immoral legal measures are taken to do so.
The view of education seems to have actually shifted. More people aspire to big things, it seems, now than before. Seeing as I'm not particularly aware of the education system that existed in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, I have no part in saying that, but it definitely feels as if education is a major role in the lives of people today. Perhaps even too big of a role...? For now it seems that education is non-stop, that it never ends. And while yes, we do never stop learning, at least hopefully not, we believe as children that once you graduate from high school, graduate from college, you're done, and you are simply handed a job by the world. Education now continues almost endlessly. People are being educated in their 40s and 50s... Even older! Not saying that education should be less important than it is, I simply think that maybe another shift would be more beneficial towards the youth of the world.
Realizing that we are a "world without war" first means that we would have to be a world without war. As we are currently in the midst of a very long-lived war, that can not be realized, since you can't exactly realize something that isn't true. If it were possible for this to be a world without war, then that would be wonderful, and then maybe everyone could realize that we are a world without war. Maybe then there would be peace. This seems highly improbable. Like ying and yang, in order for peace to exist there must also be chaos--war. And it is not merely the physical wars that are important here. Physical wars don't merely start, normally. There is usually a cause, a motive, some grudge held against another by one, be it a country, religion, race, ethnic group, etc.. People will always have the bit of will in them that makes them have their own individual ideas. Some people will and do fight for their ideas, for their beliefs. In a world without war, people would have to be less than people, I believe. It seems unlikely for such a thing to exist.
----
Asimov's humor is quite witty in the lecture. It probably helped him a great deal with connecting to the crowd, first of all, but it definitely helped with the understanding of this whole thing. Had it been a dry, boring, flaky piece on the same things we hear from left-wing and right-wing politicians, this would most likely have been something that was not as much understood as read and memorized, like a science article. Humor makes things much more understandable, as well as bearable. Entertaining a group of students for so long would require either an enviable personality or a wonderful sense of humor. Asimov seems to be blessed with both here.
Not only that, but his stories are interesting. And slightly motivating, too. The first story, that of the article from 1938-39, is very moving. It not only brought up a much-overlooked side of an argument (that most don't realize it is an argument because it is so overloooked), but it showed the benefits of being an individual. Normally, stories of individuality are accompanied by a few words: jail, prison, cops, court. Those, and their synonyms, seem to be what scare people away from individuality, but here Asimov shows a true reward of it. His article was published for the reason that he had actually shown the resistance. And, surprise surprise! He didn't go to jail for it. This is the sort of thing, the very mild resistance that doesn't go to the extremes, but still manages to do something. I think people need to take a good look at this sort of thing, and maybe if we did that, we could get a better look at ourselves and the world. Hey, maybe we could even come closer to Asimov's "world without war"... ?
----
As for synoptic philosohpy, Asimov tends to speak of the human race as a whole, and eliminates alot of the general distinctions we create among ourselves. Even gender is not an overruling factor in our lives, we tend to think, but Asimov makes a point of almost always looking at humanity as a whole. Perhaps to make an example for others, to maybe start on the trip to a world where these distinctions are not made...? And then, again, a step closer to the "world without war"...?
Whatever the case, he makes his point and does it well.
Population control is really somewhat self-explanatory. The world's population limit is predicted to be WELL under 10billion, and with the population rising as dramatically as it had been during the 1900's, this posed a major threat to humanity. Boom-and-bust was definitely a contemplated theory. It seems though that as the 21st century came about, the next generation of parents were limiting their households. Yes, there are people with two or three (or nine) children, but for the most part, average is 1 or 2. This has definitely helped to at least slow the population increase problem, if not to begin reversing it. For any real changes to be made in population, though, there would have to be very explicitly written laws, which would be violating many human rights. Who is to say that a woman can not have as many children as she wishes? While personally I feel no threat by this law, because I have no intention of increasing the population ever, there are definitely women out there who want to have lots and lots of babies. Restricting women from bearing children would lead to more problems than most have ever fathomed. And not only the issue with women, but the fact that many cultures will be under the influence that we are trying to wipe them out by inflicting these laws upon them. So, while population control is a definitive issue, it is not going to be solved anytime soon unless immoral legal measures are taken to do so.
The view of education seems to have actually shifted. More people aspire to big things, it seems, now than before. Seeing as I'm not particularly aware of the education system that existed in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, I have no part in saying that, but it definitely feels as if education is a major role in the lives of people today. Perhaps even too big of a role...? For now it seems that education is non-stop, that it never ends. And while yes, we do never stop learning, at least hopefully not, we believe as children that once you graduate from high school, graduate from college, you're done, and you are simply handed a job by the world. Education now continues almost endlessly. People are being educated in their 40s and 50s... Even older! Not saying that education should be less important than it is, I simply think that maybe another shift would be more beneficial towards the youth of the world.
Realizing that we are a "world without war" first means that we would have to be a world without war. As we are currently in the midst of a very long-lived war, that can not be realized, since you can't exactly realize something that isn't true. If it were possible for this to be a world without war, then that would be wonderful, and then maybe everyone could realize that we are a world without war. Maybe then there would be peace. This seems highly improbable. Like ying and yang, in order for peace to exist there must also be chaos--war. And it is not merely the physical wars that are important here. Physical wars don't merely start, normally. There is usually a cause, a motive, some grudge held against another by one, be it a country, religion, race, ethnic group, etc.. People will always have the bit of will in them that makes them have their own individual ideas. Some people will and do fight for their ideas, for their beliefs. In a world without war, people would have to be less than people, I believe. It seems unlikely for such a thing to exist.
----
Asimov's humor is quite witty in the lecture. It probably helped him a great deal with connecting to the crowd, first of all, but it definitely helped with the understanding of this whole thing. Had it been a dry, boring, flaky piece on the same things we hear from left-wing and right-wing politicians, this would most likely have been something that was not as much understood as read and memorized, like a science article. Humor makes things much more understandable, as well as bearable. Entertaining a group of students for so long would require either an enviable personality or a wonderful sense of humor. Asimov seems to be blessed with both here.
Not only that, but his stories are interesting. And slightly motivating, too. The first story, that of the article from 1938-39, is very moving. It not only brought up a much-overlooked side of an argument (that most don't realize it is an argument because it is so overloooked), but it showed the benefits of being an individual. Normally, stories of individuality are accompanied by a few words: jail, prison, cops, court. Those, and their synonyms, seem to be what scare people away from individuality, but here Asimov shows a true reward of it. His article was published for the reason that he had actually shown the resistance. And, surprise surprise! He didn't go to jail for it. This is the sort of thing, the very mild resistance that doesn't go to the extremes, but still manages to do something. I think people need to take a good look at this sort of thing, and maybe if we did that, we could get a better look at ourselves and the world. Hey, maybe we could even come closer to Asimov's "world without war"... ?
----
As for synoptic philosohpy, Asimov tends to speak of the human race as a whole, and eliminates alot of the general distinctions we create among ourselves. Even gender is not an overruling factor in our lives, we tend to think, but Asimov makes a point of almost always looking at humanity as a whole. Perhaps to make an example for others, to maybe start on the trip to a world where these distinctions are not made...? And then, again, a step closer to the "world without war"...?
Whatever the case, he makes his point and does it well.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Irving's Theory
"If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded--or even suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."
--Irving Kristol
-------
This is definitely something that holds true in numerous situations. Looking at history, and even the times we live in today, we can see the desperate things that people have done under the belief that they have no meaning in life. Suicide, depression, substance abuse, etc., these are things that people normally have done under the belief or suspicion that they have no meaningful purpose in the lives they are leading.
Of course, seen through Plato's Apology, we get the idea that people need to have more than just some meaning, they need to feel important than every other creature on this planet, excluding their fellow humans. At times, like the judges whom preceded over Socrates's case, they feel even more important than the very God(s) they claim to be working for. While this is a slightly controversial belief, it works in favor of people to give them the meaning and importance which they feel necessary to have in order to make it through their lives.
Once these meanings, the purpose and importance, once it is removed, or even given a doubtful thought, is when the people begin to react in ways that are sometimes to the extremes. Murderers are often people who have come out of a divorce with less than what they expected, who feel they've lost the importance in the lives they once led. Those who commit suicide commonly feel that they have lost meaning, and hold no importance in the world, that if they were to just disappear the world would either take no notice or even become a better place without them. There are other examples, but most people who have come to suspect that their lives are meaningless often tend to act in self-destructive ways, perhaps even giving themselves a purpose--to destroy themselves?--in doing so.
Once the meaning that people's lives "hold" is removed, they begin to deteriorate. Their societies, if meaning is removed, will deteriorate around its inhabitants, while they deteriorate. While some will become zombies, continuing to exist without an individual will and no major decisions to make, the greater majority will fail, and once the majority has failed, then even the will-less zombies will fail. Without the ego-feeding importance and meaning they seek, people simply can not survive.
This is definitely something that holds true in numerous situations. Looking at history, and even the times we live in today, we can see the desperate things that people have done under the belief that they have no meaning in life. Suicide, depression, substance abuse, etc., these are things that people normally have done under the belief or suspicion that they have no meaningful purpose in the lives they are leading.
Of course, seen through Plato's Apology, we get the idea that people need to have more than just some meaning, they need to feel important than every other creature on this planet, excluding their fellow humans. At times, like the judges whom preceded over Socrates's case, they feel even more important than the very God(s) they claim to be working for. While this is a slightly controversial belief, it works in favor of people to give them the meaning and importance which they feel necessary to have in order to make it through their lives.
Once these meanings, the purpose and importance, once it is removed, or even given a doubtful thought, is when the people begin to react in ways that are sometimes to the extremes. Murderers are often people who have come out of a divorce with less than what they expected, who feel they've lost the importance in the lives they once led. Those who commit suicide commonly feel that they have lost meaning, and hold no importance in the world, that if they were to just disappear the world would either take no notice or even become a better place without them. There are other examples, but most people who have come to suspect that their lives are meaningless often tend to act in self-destructive ways, perhaps even giving themselves a purpose--to destroy themselves?--in doing so.
Once the meaning that people's lives "hold" is removed, they begin to deteriorate. Their societies, if meaning is removed, will deteriorate around its inhabitants, while they deteriorate. While some will become zombies, continuing to exist without an individual will and no major decisions to make, the greater majority will fail, and once the majority has failed, then even the will-less zombies will fail. Without the ego-feeding importance and meaning they seek, people simply can not survive.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)