God is Dead

So my dear friend Nietzsche said. Of course, like so many misunderstood of his time, he was pretty much branded a heretic without even so much as a thought as to what he meant by the phrase. It wasn't simply a saying that he was an atheist, that he did not believe in God (he very well might have been one, but that's not the point), but a profound statement that the world that he knew was coming to realize that the God of the Gaps was becoming less and less important as science began to fill up those gaps.

I have yet to read any Joseph Campbell (beyond Action Philosophers #3, in stores now), but his writings on myth are very important to us in this day and age. Myth does not mean "fable" or "fiction" but it can take the format of a story. It is the narrative, generally belonging to a group of people. As people mature, the myth no longer fits into their worldview and it is "broken." Like Humpty Dumpty, all the kings horses and all the king's men can't put it back together again. Either the myth changes, or it is abandoned. Hence why religions do change, albeit very slowly.

Having previously commented on the problems with postmodernism, I began to contemplate the paradox of competing narratives. The whole "everybody's-opinions-are-equally-valid-so-long-as-they're-not-hurting-anyone" postmodern view of things. We like to see things clearly, as they say, in Black and White. If something is true, then clearly what is the opposite of that something is not true. It is my opinion that although the narratives look different on the surface, they are only put into competition with each other because people lack the insight to read into the myth and what it really says. As my grandmother's grandmother used to say, "All roads lead to the same place." Competing narratives are just making the same point in a different way, just like we can say "yes" and "oui" and "ja" and it all means the same thing. It is up to us to discover the meaning of it all, to dig deeper and not keep God in our back pockets. Since we are all unique, we can also utilize the different interpretations to understand the Truth more fully. The elephant is not just the legs, the ear or the trunk.

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -Niels Bohr
"Nietzsche is dead." -God

Beyond Absurdity

Having just finished a little book on the subject of postmodernism, I feel able to tackle a blog post. There are a few questions here, namely, what is postmodernism, what are the problems with it, and what are the solutions.

Regardless of our philosophical outlook, we are living in a postmodern world. I am so far entrenched in it that I am often blind to its influence. Yet as pervasive as it is, one of the biggest problems with postmodernism is that it is difficult to define. The foremost technique of the theory is a process called Deconstruction (with much thanks to Derrida and Foucault) by which we analyse texts to find out that they mean absolutely nothing. And by texts, I mean anything and everything. So essentially, postmodernism cannot have a definition, because by defining itself it opens it up to Deconstruction, and sets it up to be an essentially meaningless theory.

However, the irony is that Deconstruction makes postmodernism a meaningless theory even without defining it. By stating that because everything can be reduced to nothingness (as the title of this post suggests), postmodernism is making a vague claim that the truth does not exist. It sets itself up as anti-anything that claims to have the truth, especially anything remotely rational like science. However, this can sometimes be beneficial instead of just destructive. The problem with any theory and any claim to truth is that it often forces itself on others. And this is where I have to point out my bias as someone who never knew a world that was not fully entrenched in postmodernist theory. Certain peoples have been "put in their place" by those who believed they knew better. Many of those marginalised have now been given a voice thanks to this theory. If everything is up for interpretation, and no one interpretation is better than the other, then all may speak freely. However, the downside to this is that it created a society of victims. The insane amount of political correctness that haunts us today is a product of postmodernism. For even though what we say is meaningless, it can be interpreted to mean what we didn't intend for it to.

Where do we go from here? Any so called established "truth" is being destroyed, and dialectic, the backbone of truth-seeking, is also being torn down. I believe that the world will not tolerate this for that much longer, for as much as we enjoy basking in our helpless state of victimhood, the truth will win out. We must realise that people have an insatiable craving for the truth, and will find it wherever they can-why do you think Bush is on his second term? He promises what others refuse to. We will continue to lose people to idiocy if we cannot find our way out of this corner we have painted ourselves into.

"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art." -Susan Sontag
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -Freud

Recommended reading: Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction by Christopher Butler

Of Bullies and Supermen

Yes, I realise it's been a long time since I've posted. Frankly, I've been busy with Passover preparations, and learning a haftarah to sing in synagogue. I know that you honestly don't care about the petty details of my life, and I promised myself this wouldn't be a blog like all other blogs (Today I changed my cat's litter box. I think Fluffy must be coming down with something. He hardly played with his ball of yarn today. I must see the vet about it. I hope he doesn't give me any medication. Remember the fiasco that happened the last time I tried to give him medication?! :)). Ever notice how all bloggers have cats? But I digress.

On to today's topic: bullying. This is something, of course, that I see on a daily basis. The notes I intercept on a regular basis are all about how so and so's been calling so and so words that I didn't even know at that age (and I'm still too young to know). Kids also get beat up in the hallways (on a less regular basis, as that type of bullying is more often caught and more severely punished). With instant messaging kids have an easier time of harassing each other at home (one reason to be thankful I didn't grow up in the age of the Internet). I don't know that things change much as we get older, there will always be aggressive personalities vying for some bitch to do their work for them or to make miserable for some unknown reason.

People are always going on about what's "natural." So isn't the natural order of things that someone stronger should prey on someone weaker and get what they want? Yet the great majority of us feel this is morally wrong, whatever code we abide by. Even Nietzsche wrote about the "Superman" who was being oppressed by society because of our beliefs. (I haven't actually read Nietzsche, but I read about him in the excellent comic Action Philosophers #1, in stores now). Regardless of how Nietzsche's beliefs have been bastardized throughout time, perhaps they still have some validity.

If my scientifically minded husband will forgive me for exploring the world of evolution, I will start with the reasons why we are programmed to be aggressive. The main reason is that if people weren't aggressive, somebody else would eat their share, and they'd have nothing and die. In scarce times, only those who were strong enough got to eat, and instead of bullies beating people up for their lunch money, they just took their lunch. Those who got to eat got to reproduce, if only for the sheer fact of being alive (but hey, bullies also have bad boy appeal, and maybe that's an evolutionary trait too--women want a man who can provide, no matter what he has to do to do it). This is how the world worked for many a year. At what point did this change?

I would have to say Romanticism killed the Superman. No where else in history (and my college professor always used 1776 as the beginning of the age of Romanticism) are man's rights defined so clearly: Rousseau and his Social Contract, the Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution. During this time the idea that everyone has rights even if they can't defend them becomes paramount. Even a Superman is not bigger than someone's Rights. If a Superman tries to be bigger than someone else's rights, everyone gets together and does something to the Superman to beat him into submission, whether it be by shaming him or literally beating him. The Superman is nothing against the collective (Resistance is futile. He must be assimilated).

Besides cultural programming and societal pressure (as if that wasn't enough), why do we still espouse human rights? Why do we feel such a strong sense of morality when it comes to human rights abuses? It is possible that there is still a degree of self-preservation. Were it not for the stars, we could have been born in any situation around the world. I also believe that somewhere we know that now that we have finished being fruitful and multiplying (enough with the fruitful already! Isn't 6 billion people enough?!) that the way to world peace is through the respect of the rights of others. Essentially, while the Superman had a role to play in the building of this world, he is incompatible with the preservation of this world.

Fundamentally, though, the social contract not only comes to our benefit with Rights. It's purpose is to lay out Rights and Responsibilities, something which is greatly forgotten in our post-post-modern world. This is the reason why human rights abuses are still occurring around the world. And if we can't bear our responsibilities well in small things (someone else's lunch money), how can we manage the big ones (ethnic cleansing)?

"Most people, no doubt, when they espouse human rights, make their own mental reservations about the proper application of the word 'human'"-Susan Lafollette [Concerning Women]

Special Status

I'm still alive...I was just buried in report cards for the past few weeks...

I have many students with various kinds of disabilities, as befits a teacher of special needs. I have kids with ADD/ADHD. So help me, they are the most frustrating kids on the planet...Still, they are the least of my worries (when I can get them to sit down and stop bothering the other students). Most of my students have what we commonly call a "learning disability" which doesn't really say much as to their condition. Usually it's up to the teacher to figure out what that means for each student so they can help them achieve their best. Generally, I find it very hard to see the difference between "learning disabled" and "lazy and forgetful," although I know the distinction is there somewhere. It just becomes a lot harder to deal with when you have them teamed up together, because you don't know what to blame.

The disabilities these students have are not going to go away. They are serious problems, not just made up by teachers who think students misbehave too much and need to be medicated in order to calm down. And learning disabilities are an even more serious concern because these students are eventually going to join the workforce and be productive somehow. The big problem, from my perspective, is not how do we teach these students (it's simple, the same way as any other student, just break things down more and take it slow) but how we integrate these students into our classroom and the world without pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No child left behind has begun to translate into "we don't fail kids anymore." Teachers do fail students (at least I do). They may curve their grades a little but at the end of it all students will still fail. What else can you do when Bobby refuses to work or Sally hasn't shown up to class all year? However, some of the kids who don't make it are trying really, really hard and they just can't do it. They're not academics and hey, even Einstein failed math in elementary, right? No child left behind, right? So why don't we just pass them along to the next grade, never mind the fact that they haven't mastered the skills they need to move on. Never mind that every year they get passed up their inabilities are compounded. And hey, while we're at it, since the parents of Bobby and Sally are going to complain, we'll have to pass them too. Never mind that it shows them they can get something for nothing.

Anyone with a bit of common sense (which must not include the people who passed a student of mine into the next grade who failed math with a 40 last year) sees the problem with this. Not only is our education system underfunded, a degree will eventually not be worth the paper it's printed on. Anyone can get one. I'm waiting for this to hit the college and university level, and as special needs students are given their rightful status at these institutions and people who know people are getting passing grades for nothing, slowly the entire education system of North America will crumble.

I don't believe we should have an education system like that of other countries, especially that of the Asian ones we try to compete with. These countries have no place for students who have special needs and have valuable things to contribute to our society. As with a democracy, our education is the worst form there is, except all the others that have been tried.

"Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill

Dying Courageously

Let's check out the news today. A boy in the US goes on a shooting rampage, killing a bunch of people and injuring many others before shooting himself. A man fights to end his wife's life while her family and many unrelated Conservatives fight to save it. I speak of these today because I want to discuss what it means to die courageously, having already discussed what it means to live courageously.

The first thing I'd like to comment on is what was splattered all over the front page this morning, Columbine redux. Obviously this kid had problems. I find it sad that he was allowed to fall through the cracks, as so many children are, but that is besides the point. The fact of the matter is that while this child wielded a lot of power in the weapons that he branded, he had no courage, ultimately taking his life, knowing the consequences that awaited him. Regardless of his reasons for doing what he did, there was no courage in his act. Courageous people find ways of dealing with their pain that does not include murder of innocents (including themselves). Suicide is cowardice. The mental anguish of depression can outweigh some of the toughest physical pain, and there is no analgesic to stop it. Yet I cannot believe that it is where life should end. This is where we must be courageous, creating in the face of despair.

The second situation is also difficult to talk about. Some people think that we are more humane to our animals than we are to our fellow human beings. Who cares more about their pets, those who choose to spare them the pain (or perhaps think it is too costly to save their lives), or those who choose to fight for their lives (or who won't spare them the pain because they themselves can't let go)? While the pet analogy is simplistic, it rings true. Far more simplistic is the idea that euthanasia is always wrong, or the right to choose is always right.

The two newsworthy situations are one and the same. Whether the pain is mental or physical, I don't think we can judge when it is appropriate to choose when to stop living. However, since medicine can keep us alive for a great deal of time, we must figure out what it means if our bodies are being kept alive by machines. How do we determine what "living" really is? As I said yesterday, I believe it is more than just the fact of existing. Yet where do we draw the line? The slippery slope may be a logical fallacy, but it is something we must keep in mind: the line must be drawn somewhere. If it is courageous to live, at what point is it OK not to? No matter what our capabilities, we can all create, we can all be courageous. But when that capacity is taken from us, I should hope that we have the courage to let go.

For further reading: Denial of the Soul by M. Scott Peck

Living Courageously

To me, the title of this post is an oxymoron, because to live is to be courageous. The dialogue continues, as is fitting for a philosophical discussion. How can death not be depressing? Again, I ask the opposite, why is it depressing? So far anyone has yet to answer this question. Everyone just assumes that it is true, which is the antithesis of philosophical debate. We must question everything. Besides, regardless of how we feel about it, it is a fact that one day we will all die. Facts may invoke feelings, but by themselves they are objective and without feeling. For those relentless commentators I ask for you to explain to me why death is depressing, not just to say that it is. Otherwise the debate will have ended because I believe I will have no more to say on the subject after this post.

My view, and perhaps it is because I am more sensitive to the fact of death, is that we choose to live everyday of our lives. We have a choice to make everyday in the face of the meaningless void that threatens us, and that is to create meaning in a meaningless world. Each day (and this is more apparent to adolescents and adults more than to children) we awake and decide to live. We do not have to make this decision, in fact, it would be so much easier to give up and not do anything. When I say "live," I am not speaking of merely existing, but the fact of living, which is to say that we add our two cents to the world by the things that we do. We don't have to be great artists to add a great deal to this world, any act of creation, however small it may be, will do. This takes great courage because anything that we do could be senselessly obliterated at any moment by any random act of humanity or God. Still, we choose to do them. Why?

Regardless of the inhumanities of man, I must admire the courage to continue despite everything that has happened. Despite wars, despite natural disasters, despite disease, we continue. Not only do we get up each day and decide that suicide is just not an option (which for some of us is quite an accomplishment), we go even further and create meaning. We give birth to children that might not grow up, we give birth to ideas that might not see fruition, we give birth to art that might be destroyed and we teach future generations that this is the right path. I agree. This is what I mean by living courageously.

"Sometimes even to live is an act of courage." -Seneca
"Often the test of courage is not to die, but to live." -Vittorio Alfieri
"Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die." -G. K. Chesterton

Death and Dying

I received a comment recently about how all my posts seem to come down to death and dying. Granted, it is somewhat of an obsession of mine (and I have never been labeled as a Goth by myself or others), however, what occurred to me is not, "Why do I always think about death?" but rather, "Why don't others think about it more?"

We are a culture of eternal youth and living forever. Everyone wants to be young forever-or at least ascribe to a philosophy that promises life everlasting. Just look at our obsession with plastic surgery, even to the point of having TV shows about it! There is an enormous amount of research going into studying aging. In this past century life expectancy has increased greatly, and even the quality of life has improved for those who do reach venerable ages (at least in this part of the world). My own great-grandmother was cracking jokes at her hundredth birthday party. The number of centenarians is also increasing, and we are promised that soon everyone will live to be a hundred.

This is the norm. No one questions it, of course, because it's normal. So when someone does something that is not normal, like talking about death a lot in a life-centered society, they are considered to be abnormal. It doesn't bother me much to be considered abnormal, as if there's something wrong with thinking about death a lot. I'd rather be counter-culture anyway; I always have been, I always will be. Even Rollo May believes that the artists of our times are canaries of sorts, singing loudly to warn the people of impending danger.

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: people are afraid of death. I am no different than others, but I choose to live my life courageously by facing it. I don't believe we can ignore its importance. Death is the other side of the coin to life. It is only by struggling with this unknowable certainty that we can truly live.

"As you struggle with the mystery of your death, you will discover the meaning of your life." -M. Scott Peck [Further Down the Road Less Traveled]

For further reading: Elizabeth Kubler-Ross On Death and Dying and M. Scott Peck The Road Less Travelled

The Face That Launched One Thousand Ships

The reference in my title is to Helen of Troy, from a line in Marlowe's Faust. While Faust (whoever's it may be) is a post in itself, this particular post is about Helen and what she stands for, namely, Beauty (with a capital B). Why Helen? Helen is the inspiration for a culture. The Greeks are known as Hellenic for a reason. Although ancient Greece rules no more, it continues to inspire us (speaking from a strictly eurocentric point of view, which is fine considering that is my descent). Ancient Greece is the original classic, and since they were inspired by Beauty in all that they did, there must be something to it.

There is a reason why we human beings are creative, striving for Beauty. We are always striving to express ourselves and certainly art in all its forms is our means. According to Keats (Ode on a Grecian Urn), "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, --that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Dickinson also wrote in I Died for Beauty "'For beauty,' I replied./'And I for truth, -the two are one." Aldous Huxley also stated that "after silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressable is music." Within our artistic endeavors lies a deeper meaning, regardless of its intentionality.

How does this Truth sneak into our endeavors? Part of it is how we are merely expressing that which has already existed for centuries as part of our culture. We are not only inspired by ancient civilisations but unconsciously socialised to make their Truths a part of us. Moreover, art acts as therapy as our artistic struggles mirror our struggles with the world around us. Our attempts to make sense of the world are expressed as art.

Fundamentally though, creative endeavors are the answer to our greatest fear: death. When we create something truly worthwhile, expressing enduring truths about the world, we are creating something that will outlast even ourselves. It is through these creative endeavors that we can continue to dialogue with those who are no longer physically with us and seek immortality for ourselves.

For further reading: Rollo May's Courage to Create and My Quest for Beauty

Personal Responsibility and Special Needs

A friend sent me a link yesterday to a message board discussing the situation of a special needs student at the university level. Obviously apropos to myself, given that I teach special needs students at the high school level, the debate proved interesting.

The situation was the following: the student has a condition known as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). [I will not even begin to debate whether or not this and other disabilities like it actually exist; anyone who does not believe in it should stop by my classroom sometime.] Given that most universities have policies for students with disabilities, this student was demanding extra time for his tests (up to twice the allowed time). Obviously, this is a difficulty for the person administering the test, and an ethical question involving the consideration of whether or not said student actually deserved the extra time because of his conduct during classtime. Plainly said, he didn't appear to be trying to compensating for his illness by sitting near the front of the class, visiting the professor during office hours, etc.

Regardless of what the answer is to the question, university policy exists and for good reason: there are students who need it. The fact that it is often abused (like so many other things) does not negate its necessity. There is nothing that the person administering the test can do-even if the student never attended class- but to grin and bear it. I don't think there is any review of policy or criteria you can put into place to make sure abuses don't happen.

However, ethically, we can debate this forever and a day. People have disabilities, this is a fact of life. To what extent can their disabilties be used as an excuse? It reminds me of the post I wrote on Fate (alas, the poor student was finally expelled; I wish him well). I would like to think that everyone is capable of doing much more than what they think they are capable of, if they would only try. Of course, again, my bias is that I am an educator and if I didn't believe that I wouldn't bother to help my students as much as I do. But just as I see so many people use their disabilities as an excuse, I see so many people overcoming incredible odds to accomplish amazing things.

"Adversity causes some men to break; others to break records."-William Ward

The Classics

Mark Twain defines a classic as "something that everyone wants to have read but nobody wants to read." I wrote this quote down when I first began my collections because it amused me, but now I see a deeper meaning to it. We assume it means that people want to be "cultured," whatever that word means, because reading something somebody defines as a "classic" is one way to go about it. We would like to take the easy road, to be able to discuss the ideas present in the literature without having to actually read it. Again, I implore people to take the higher, more difficult path. You cannot skip important ideas without reading the full text (why Cliff notes are only good for high school English exams). The ideas inherent to the novel are not just about being "cultured" because you have read a certain piece of literature, but something far greater than can only be discovered as you work through the mythology that is inherent in it. What is "culture" anyway?

"Culture, the acquainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world, and thus with the history of the human spirit." -Arnold (emphasis mine)

Having just finished Rollo May's book The Cry for Myth, I am under the influence of his (and of course my dear friend Jung's) ideas about mythologies being inherent in our being. Regardless of the philosophy or psychology that you ascribe to, we love great stories because they present to us over and over again truisms about human beings, the way we are and act or could possibly act in given situations. Even before reading this book, I wrote in my writing journal three years ago, "Good writing is difficult to define because good stories come as close as possible to sharing the meaning of life-profound truth itself. When we write we must make our readers feel as if they are actually experiencing what we have experienced-our stories-and by doing so we share a little piece of life's grand puzzle." When we read literature we are in some way, whether we realize it or not, working through our own problems because the situations mirror our own.

"The true use of Shakespeare or of Cervantes, of Homer or of Dante, of Chaucer or of Rabelais, is to augment one's own growing inner self." -Harold Bloom [The Western Canon]

Honesty

Lying can take two forms. We can lie to others, and we can lie to ourselves. We start off by lying to others. We do it so often, and so well, that we actually convince ourselves of our untruths. Not just the untruths we tell others, but those we tell ourselves. We might use nice words like "rationalize," but it's really just a fancy word that means lying.

We lie to other people because it saves us. We make excuses for things not done or done, we fib so that we don't hurt others' feelings, but really, when it comes down to it, it's because we can't bear the discomfort that the truth brings. We don't want to be the messenger; there is a reason why the saying 'don't shoot the messenger' exists.

Lying to ourselves is a balm for an even deeper discomfort. If we told ourselves the truth about everything, we would make ourselves accountable for everything that we did. It would be our own responsibility to improve the parts of our lives that we dislike so much. We wouldn't be able to pin it on anyone else anymore, because we would have to be honest about it. Lying is a way of avoiding personal responsibility, Life and the Truth. How can we get closer to the Truth if we can't even bear to tell it to ourselves?

"Integrity is telling myself the truth. And Honesty is telling the truth to others."-Spencer Johnson

Maturity

I once had a professor in college initiate a discussion about what point a person is truly considered an adult. His firm belief was that once you have a child, you are mature. He believed this because his definition of maturity was that when you put someone else's needs before your own, as most (emphasis on the most) parents do, you are acting maturely. I agree that parenting is a sign of maturity (again, emphasis on most parenting) but for a different reason.

We live in uncertain times. To be a parent today is difficult because you have experts saying 5 different things. Discipline, but be positive, be firm, but nice, give your kids freedom, but protect them...etc etc. To make any kind of decision for your children gets more and more difficult especially as they get older and they become yet another figure looking over your shoulder telling you how to do your job. As a parent, you make decisions regardless of your uncertainty, hoping for the best. That is what maturity is.

Not only in parenting, but in life, we must make difficult decisions for ourselves. The more important the decision is, the harder it is to make, and we are often paralysed by indecision. We then use religion (God has the answers), science (we can find the answers using a specific process) and conspiracy theories (some group of people have the answers) to try to soothe ourselves. Marx's statement that religion is the "opium of the people" rings true and the problem with that is that we shouldn't be relying only on others for guidance. We have to thoroughly analyse and believe something to be true on our own terms, not because some authority said so.

"The popularity of conspiracy theories is explained by people's desires to believe that there is some group of folks who know what they're doing."-Damon Knight

It takes courage to take a stand in today's world. Rollo May had an interesting discussion of this in his book Man's Search for Himself. Courage because it is very possible that there are no real answers. I do not mean this in a nihilistic sort of way, but as perhaps more of a relativistic sort of way. Perhaps our quest for definite answers is due to our discomfort with uncertainty. The higher road then lies not in finding definite answers, but in finding the right answers for the right time. We can then also avoid relativism whereby people can use their "culture" as an excuse for comitting atrocities. This is not an easy thing to do. For instance, Canada is currently trying to pass legislation in favour of same-sex marriage. They are having difficulty because there are some people who do not agree that it should be passed. However, this is why it is a good debate: there are two sides to the issue, and one will prevail. If there were only one side of the debate, how would we have the possibility of analysing it to be true? We would have to assume that it was, since it is in the only answer provided. We would then never have the possibility of changing our minds at a future time when we have made more progress, because any sort of progress would be eliminated.

Analysing history provides us with insight for the future. At any point in history when there is great change, we are plagued with doubts. I am sure when the right for women to vote was in parliament the same sort of debate roared that currently does. Now we think nothing of the fact that less than 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote. What is a conservative but a worshipper of dead radicals? Progress is being made, however, we must keep in mind, as Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us that "All change is not growth, all movement is not forward." Again, more uncertainty. If we do move forward, we risk moving in the wrong direction. But if we don't move forward, we are lost .

"He who risks and fails can be forgiven. He who never risks and never fails is a failure in his whole being. "-Paul Tillich
"Maturity is the capicity to endure uncertainty." -Finley

Personal Responsibility (or lack thereof)

The biggest problem in the world today, as I see it from my post as a junior high school teacher, is lack of responsibility. We often hear about these irresponsible teenagers, but I'd like to consider for a moment what the word really means and the implications of it. Responsibility does not necessarily mean that things are done the way they are supposed to be done, or even that they are done at all. It simply means that someone is responsible for doing it, and accepts that they did or didn't do and the consequences that may follow. To use a familiar example, a students are responsible for their homework. If a student attempts to make excuses for why their homework isn't done in order to avoid the consequences, they are acting irresponsibly. If a student accepts the consequences readily, they are acting responsibly. If a student fails a test, the responsible student knows that they must study harder, or do something if they wish to pass. An irresponsible student blames the teacher, or bad genes, or anything else to avoid the responsibility of the fact that it is they who have failed. I will avoid a discussion about how parents are encouraging irresponsibility by siding with their "angels" and confirming their immature belief that their failure is not their fault, but it needs to be mentioned that this is the society that we are living in. Immaturity and irresponsibility are literally breeding immaturity and irresponsibility.

How do we avoid our responsibilities? One way is by living in the past, also known as the land of "if only." If only I had (or hadn't) done this, I wouldn't be such a failure, if only my parents had done that, I could be so much better, etc. etc. We can also live in the future, another if only land. If only I was older, if only I was married, if only I had children, if only the kids would grow up and move out, if only I was retired, and then what? If only I was dead? No wonder so many of our retired population suffers from depression. If you spend your whole life looking forward instead of living, what do you do when there is only death to look forward to?

We must grasp what it truly means to live, which is the same as what it means to live in the present. Living in the present means we must give up our aversion to responsibility, hard as it may be. Nobody wants to admit their failures are their own, but we must own them. How can we overcome them if we do not? Society is made up of individuals. If each individual minded their own business, and took responsibility instead of blaming others for their own failures, imagine what we would be able to accomplish. If we would look carefully at ourselves and our failures we would be able to see how we could turn them (and ourselves) into successes. I, for one, will not wait until the world is such, but will act so each day.

"If we really want to live, we'd better start at once to try." -W. H. Auden

Religion and Science

Another eternal debate. Some would think that the schism that separates these two is unbridgeable. I believe, however, as does Rollo May, that they are more alike than different. "philosophy may be a flight from reality into a harmonious 'system' as a protection from the anxiety and disharmonies of day-to-day life or it may be a courageous endeavor to understand reality better. Science may be used as a rigid, dogmatic faith by which one escapes emotional insecurity and doubt, or it may be an open-minded search for new truth." (from Man's Search for Himself, a truly excellent book).

The question should not be which is right or wrong, but what they can both bring us to enrich our lives. Each has their place in society, and believing in one does not negate belief in the other. We should not fall prey to the "God of the Gaps," either. This is the belief that God is responsible for all that science cannot explain. As science explains more and more, God is responsible for less and less until he finally disappears. Perhaps this is why Nietzsche stated that God is dead.

I agree that each of these things has their own place "and never the twain shall meet." If we try to explain mysticism scientifically, not only are we taking away from the mysticism itself (in that it is not a valid system unless it can be backed up empirically) but we are bastardizing the scientific process. However, merely exploring the realm of the objective world without our own personal subjectivity (which is the goal of science, and a worthy endeavor) is not enough. To be whole, integrated beings we must be students of ourselves. We must study the self in a way that is not sterile as is done by scientists.

What do we stand to gain from self-consciousness (and I am not speaking of it in the negative)? "The greater a person's awareness of himself, the more he can acquire the wisdom of his fathers to make it his own." (Rollo May, Man's Search for Himself)

ps. For those concerned by the lack of posts, I am still continuing with my "studies." My feeling is that if I have nothing worthwhile to say, I shouldn't talk about things that are not worthwhile. But I will still try to post at least once a week.

"How vain it is to sit down to write when one has not stood up to live." -Thoreau

To tide you over until the next substantial post

Here's a thought to muse on as I delve into the world of Jung. Another kindred spirit, perhaps?

I have always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in a amazingly stupid way.
-Carl Jung

Adam and Eve

The story of how original sin came into the world is literally as old as Adam. It has been interpreted in many ways, and here are my two cents on the subject.

The literal interpretation (and I will avoid that f-word that gets me into so much trouble) is that man sinned and was kicked out of the garden of Eden, forevermore to toil. It has also been the cause of much misogyny, because Adam wouldn't have eaten the apple if it weren't for Eve.

Man (and I use the generic abbreviation for humans) was created with free will. Regardless of what we believe about creation, we know we can choose to do Good or Evil, and this is the concept known as free will. Free will existed before evil entered the world, because Adam and Eve were able to make a choice about whether or not to eat from the Tree.

What is the nature of this original sin that Adam and Eve had committed? It is not a Pandora's box they opened, because they couldn't have chosen to do an evil act if evil did not already exist. If evil existed beforehand, then eating the apple was not the cause of evil existing in the world. What exactly was their fall from grace?

I don't claim to understand the theology of original sin, or even what the definition of sin is. But the negative connotation it has in this case, that Adam and Eve did something quite wrong by their actions is not necessarily accurate, depending on how you look at the situation.

First, of course, God told them not to eat from this tree. If we believe in a God that is loving and wants the best for his creations (which commonly knowing God as the Father figure), then we must believe that he did not want them to do eat from the tree for their own good. What was He trying to protect them from?

The tree is called the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. This means that Good and Evil existed, but that Adam and Eve were unaware of either. What does that mean for them. Would Cain still have killed Abel even in the Garden of Eden? Why not? He would not have lied to God (am I my brother's keeper?) but would have said blatantly "yep, it was me," with the innocence of someone who hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. What is the difference then? Why must people live their lives, toiling to make their livings and having pain in childbirth, when they would act the same way without knowing the difference?

It is our knowledge that makes us responsible. We are now aware, we are conscious of what Evil and what Good are. Therefore, we are responsible to choose Good over Evil, which makes life difficult for us. The distinctions are not always so clear. Thou shalt not kill, but what about self-defense? The list goes on and on and on. Now everyone carries the burden of "original sin." Our lives are difficult as we try to know more to save our souls.

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." -Alexander Pope [Essay on Criticism]

Death Becomes Us

Death. Modern medicine is making promises that we will all live to be 150. Everyday we make our attempts to cheat death, whether by eating well, exercising, or by using our anti-aging creams. It surprises us, scares us, and saddens us, even when it comes at a ripe old age. What we seldom realise is that death is a part of everyday life, not only because people die, but because death is an everyday occurrance.

There are many faces of death in everyday life, and some of them we actually see as good. My challenge to you is to see all of them as worthwhile, including when our physical bodies cease to dwell on this plane.

First, there is the renewal of our self. We are constantly becoming. One cannot become something new if one is not losing part of the old. We shed our metaphorical skins in order to mature, to advance in our thinking. This death is to be celebrated, taking the bad with the good.

There is also the death of our ego which happens on a regular basis. The word "mortify" (as in, "I can't believe I said that! I'm so mortified!") has its roots in the word "mort," or death. Being mortified is also not a bad thing from time to time, because it reminds us of our humanity and brings us to a new level of understanding.

One final thought on another "mort," called by the French "le petit mort," the expression used to describe an orgasm. To a certain extent, we die for the instant we are completely connected to another person to become the combined person. There is something very scary in completely losing yourself like that, but it is also very enjoyable.

Many things in life we try to avoid. But we cannot accept the good without the bad. They exist together, two sides of the same coin. What would happen if we stopped avoiding the negative, stopped pretending that every day we had to be happy to be "normal" and jumped headfirst into the "bad" experiences of life?


"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a Sunday afternoon." -Susan Ertz

"Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody." -Mark Twain

L'Enfer (Us and Them 2)

"L'Enfer, wrote Sartre, c'est les autres." (Hell is other people) Sometimes, I am inclined to agree with him, and those who would say they have never agreed with him have never been on a committee. Everyone at some point has had difficulties with others. Whether it's the idiots who ride public transportation, the staff council meeting that just goes on forever, or my students who expect to get something for nothing, no one is immune to others. My personal ranting aside, unless one is a hermit in the woods (and so often I find myself thinking what kindred spirits Thoreau and myself are) we all have to deal with people (including Thoreau, who wasn't so much of a hermit anyway).

The interesting thing about people is that they apart from us. I do not think we would have the consciousness we do today if we did not have some "other" who is so different from ourselves. Someone who challenges our opinions and grates against us (for things so small as the way they chew their food) surely must be "other," alien to ourselves. If they were like us, we reason, they wouldn't be so damn annoying.

The false dichotomy of Us and Them exists even on the level of the personal Us and the everyone else Them. So often when we don't like someone we fail to realise how much of what we hate in others is what we hate about ourselves. We exist, however, partly because others do, and precisely because they are so alien. Others people's actions create part of our perception, even influence the way we perceive things, and our perceptions are all we have to say "I am here."

"Our quarrel with the world is an echo of the endless quarrel proceeding within us." -Eric Hoffer

RANT

To all the morons who ride public transportation:

Stop acting like every bus you see is the last one that will ever pass you by. It's not 30 below, and it won't kill you to wait 5 minutes for the next bus. Furthermore, to the idiots who insist on crowding onto the bus through the rear door (which technically isn't allowed anyway), when you stand under the motion detectors that open the door, you are keeping the door open, which means the bus cannot move. You are thereby negating the whole purpose of public transportation. To those who treat the bus and metro as their own personal strip club (also known as pole-huggers), the rest of us need to hang on, too.

Thank you.

The Coin

Do things really exist? Again, I ask myself that question, as many who are not so inclined to think openly about the subject will kick a rock and say "of course!" (Then again, it is possible to be so open-minded that one's brain falls out, but that is a different discussion altogether).

Our definition of things is quite circular. Let us take the example of Good and Evil, as they are pertinent and easily understandable although their definitions are elusive. What is Good? Could we understand something to be Good if there was not Evil to define it? If one, say, helps an old lady cross the street, would it be considered Good if that person could not also just ignore the lady, or worse, push her into traffic? Similarly, do we not recognise events such as the Holocaust to be Evil because we believe that not murdering millions of people is Good?

On the other hand, consider rain and sunshine. We appreciate the sunshine because we know there are days that are rainy. However, the fact that we appreciate such days does not mean they would cease to exist without their opposite. Days would still be sunny even if it did not rain, however ungrateful we would be. There is, of course, the necessity of rain, as constant "beautiful" days would cause drought, starvation, and eventually, war. Regardless, they would still exist. However, their definition would change, and we would not think of sunny days as good or beautiful. If we lacked Evil to define Good, would Good change its definition as well? And then wouldn't we just end up with the two sides of the coin all over again?

The mystery of the coin confuses us all. Even if we could separate the two sides of the coin, would it be beneficial? In our struggle to be perfect, we wish to get rid of all that is "bad." However, does not perfection lie in the balance between good and evil?

"Disease makes health pleasant and good." -Heraclitus

Phenomena and Noumena

Kant's view of the world is truly a "footnote to Plato," as A. N. Whitehead wrote. The idea of phenomena (the word meaning what we can sense) and noumena (the 'spirit' or ideal world) reflects greatly Plato's world Ideas and our world which attempts to replicate these Ideas. This is what it looks like to me:

Us (subjective) ||||||||| The world (objective) ||||||||| The world of Ideas

Now traditionally, philosophers (existentialists excepted, and we shall get to them in a minute) have been trying to empirically or rationally see the world as it really is. This is how philosophy got broken up into the Sciences (experimental, psychiatry, psychology, etc.). Is it possible to attain the world of ideas by plowing through the world as it is objectively?

The other possibility is as the existentialists believed, that there is no world of Ideas. There is no Ideal way of doing things, no big capitalised Ideas like Beauty, Justice and Truth. We should do things not because it follows some divine precept (as the world of the Ideas is surely divine if not traditionally so), but just because we want to do the right thing. While this does lead to freedom of will, it still begs the question of what those right things are and how we can know they are right. Maybe we don't know and that's the point, that we do things we believe to be right even though we will never know for sure. I for one believe that if you are constantly questioning your actions, you are in the right, no matter what decision you have made. The world's greatest atrocities have been committed by people who believed unquestioningly in their cause.

Quite possibly (and this is what I've been hinting at -loudly- since the beginning of my blog), my view is something that cannot be communicated in this 2 dimensional space. Perhaps the way into the world of Ideas is not through the world as we know it objectively, but backwards, away from our senses. It could be, instead of a straight line from us to the world to the Ideas, a circle from Ideas to us to the world.

"Human beings go around admiring the mountain heights, the mighty tides of the sea, the broad streams of the river, the circle of ocean, and the orbits of the stars, but do not care to look more deeply into themselves." -Petrarch [Mt. Ventoux]

1776

Most Americans will know this date. It is revered by them as likely the most important date in the history of their country. However, I'd like to add to that and say for everyone, it can be an important date, representing the rise of many important ideas. I was introduced to this idea by a college professor of mine. The industrial revolution (and subsequent rise of capitalism), the American revolution, and the rise of romanticism are three things occurring at this time that have to do with one important -ism: Individualism. Surely the American revolution embodies individualism; the individual and individual rights and freedoms is what America stands for. Capitalism (a decidedly American pastime), is the individual profiting off of the many. Anyone who has ever read Romantic poetry (and we're not talking love sonnets here) knows how prevalent the authors (and their feelings) become during this period ("I wandered lonely as a cloud," says Wordsworth, one of my favourites).

We are said to live in a post-modern era (although you'll have to excuse me, I think I heard that we're post-post modern now). Frankly, I do not think civilisation has evolved much since our enlightened era of Romanticism. We are living in a post-1776 world. We revere the individual, our self, our feelings. One is special because they are unique, and we're all unique. (How we can all continue to be special is beyond me.) Wordsworth's cry is heard all over the world in the latest self-help book: "What do you when you find yourself lonely like a cloud."

Individuality is the new conformity. Everyone is different, and that must be accepted (see previous post on cultural relativism for the dangers of that). Those that aren't accepting cannot be a part of Us, they represent the enemy Them. "We are all equal," Us says, "and don't you forget it!"

The difficulty I have with these ideas is the inbalance it creates, exemplified with our very broken school system. Now I'm very happy with the idea of equality and equal access. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and its Canadian counterpart are a movement in the right direction. However, so often we forget what our forefathers meant (or should have meant) when they wrote "all mean are created equal."

The common definition (and you can check dictionary.com as I did) is same or identical. We are all same and identical. However, we know this for a fact to be false. We are not equal. I am 5'5 and not atheletically inclined. I cannot play for the NBA. "Discrimination! Discrimination!" Us cries.

We are not equal, but we have equal rights under the law. I have the ability to buy a ticket to a NBA game, if I should so choose, just as anyone else does. The arena is required by law to provide special access to those who need it (read: wheelchair). This is all very well and good, but my problem begins in the school system. And the students who go there are a product of their home environment.

Want to hear something shocking? I'm sure this is representative of schools everywhere, and not just in my district. We don't fail kids anymore. Frankly, it's bad for their self-esteem. Students deserve to be in a group of their peers. How embarassing for someone to fail! They'll be scarred for life! As long as they're trying (and students all try at different levels) then we can pass them along to the next teacher. Parents, too, contribute to this. They can't punish their children for misbehaving. It's bad for their self-esteem! As long as they love them enough, they'll turn out allright. Besides, if the parents punish their children, they'll get mad at their parents (maybe even hate them) and that would be bad for the parents' self-esteem. What is this world coming to?

Here's something even more shocking: Contrary to the advice of a once popular book, I'm not OK, you're not OK, we're all not OK. Because if we're all not ok, then we still have something to strive for. Everyone should be striving for things, not attaining them. Remember, it's all about the pursuit of happiness, not the attainment of it.

"Remember that happiness is a way of travel, not a destination." -Goodman

Why Do We Have To Learn This?

For students not aspiring to be mathematicians (which is, apparently, all students of mine), math is an extremely boring and useless subject. I am not as perturbed as other teachers when asked that ubiquitous question, because I once felt the same way. Had somebody told me I would eventually become a junior high school math teacher, I would have laughed in their face. The fact that I am now enjoying math aside, today's topic of discussion is Knowledge.

Knowledge is power, or so the saying goes. Power reminds me of the use of force to attain means (by the way, that student who beat up that other student was suspended for 3 days). Knowledge, however, is the ultimate means to attain a desirable end for the one wielding it, as it allows one to know exactly what type of force would be the most advantageous. This is aside from the amount of bloodshed that has been caused by weapons of destruction developed by knowledgeable scientists.

The fact of the matter is, is that the question is an invalid one. We try to point out to our students this fact, but they only think we are telling them this to shut them up. Knowledge for use of power is also a bastardization of the idea of knowledge for knowledge's sake.

The first thing we must consider is this. What is important to know? If we looked at the media as an example (imagine a later civilisation digging up our ruins) we would think that who's dating whom (or breaking up with whom) is worth knowing. Everything about celebrities (whether these are people who should be celebrated, as the word origin tells us, is up for debate) is pertinent. We can then turn to the internet, where we find porn, conspiracy theories, hate sites and other random things. Out of the millions of sites that exist, which is the most important site? (In the beginning there was Google, and the word was with Google, and the word was Google). Then we can look at books. What should one read? Preferences aside, does a Harlequin novel have the same standing as a philosophy text? What about the books on the New York times bestseller list? Or (and I shudder to think of it), the latest popular novel that is so incredibly deep? (How a novel that the masses consider intelligent can ever be so is beyond me).

Finally, if we do decide amongst the multitude of knowledge that exists which is even worthy of our consideration, we must then decide what is true. Truth (and we must capitalise it, as we do with other important words), is elusive. Certainly I think we wouldn't know what to do with it when we caught it. Again, we act as though one particular group has a monopoly on truth and that is all there is. There is never talk of many truths, and with good reason, as stated in a previous post discussing cultural relativism. Not every belief can be valid, otherwise some beliefs would then be invalid. But if only some beliefs are valid, then some beliefs are invalid (if you'll excuse the obvious statement for the purposes of logic). So we have a Catch-22. Perhaps there is something out there that trancends logic, without being ridiculous.

"It takes considerable knowledge just to realise the extent of your own ignorance." -Thomas Sowell

Us and Them

Yesterday I was embarrassed for my country. Never before to this extent have I been this embarrassed. Our school is hosting foreign exchange students from Korea. I have discussed what type of school I teach at, so you can imagine this student's culture shock as he sits in my special education grade 9 math class listening to the white boys call each other "dawg." He must think Canadians are the stupidest people on the planet, as I went over and over something I had already been teaching for the past few days. Cultural stereotypes aside, my class is slooooooooooooow, and he already understood what we were learning. At least I gain some perspective as I think about the differences between our countries.

Us and Them. Throughout history, this has been the cause of wars. Our circle of Us grows larger, but so does the Them. We started off as close-knit family groups, then tribes, then towns, cities, city-states, countries. Even as we speak nations are vying to join the EU, a union of countries. If what Star Trek predicts is correct, once we discover (or are discovered) by extra-planetary civilisations, the world will unite as one big Us against the universal Them. The future in Star Trek is great because there is no war on Earth. What occurs in the stars is a whole other matter. I hardly think that we are likely to go out peacefully just to explore, without trying to conquer and make clear the division between humans and aliens. But I digress. That is a long way off in the future, at any rate. Let us speak for now of the Us and Them that is so near.

Really, Us and Them is a false dichotomy. It is first and foremost a product of our need to belong, to feel special because we are a part of a group. The idea that we are part of an exclusive connection of people is tempting, but it only works if we are exclusionary at the same time. There can be no Us if there is no Them. Thus, people are left out of these groups to fend for themselves or become a part of their own exclusionary group. As a high school teacher I see this on a day to day basis.

The other reason we are so interested in forming groups is because we like to classify things. From the time we are very young (eat the red ones last) to our modern day science (mammals, amphibians, etc.) we put things in groups. It stems from the early days when Ugh would say "this berry is good, but Ook ate this berry and died." It was necessary as a means to survive, and continues to be necessary for scientific progress. However, is it socially necessary?

It would be naive to look at the world and see everything as being the same. We are each unique and our cultures offer so much that is different that it would be a shame just to melt it all together into one bland paste. But our discerning perceptions go into overdrive when we see what we perceive to be the enemy. Can we really tell just by looking at someone if they mean to hurt us or not (think of the date rape situation)? We were always warned about judging a book by its cover, and with good reason. Not to be taken to one extreme or the other, of course.

"We have met the enemy, and it is us." -Pogo

The Theory of Relativity

When it all comes down to it, discussions about belief systems usually end up in the realm of relativity. In our politically correct world, we are told to at the very least tolerate our differences, at the most, celebrate them. However, the danger here lies in cultural relativism, which most people don't even think of.

Fundamentalists (of any kind) are scorned because they do not let others have their beliefs peacefully. If it doesn't agree with their own beliefs, its morally wrong and there will be dire consequences (hell's fire usually being among them). Liberals deplore this kind of black and white thinking because so much falls in that gray area of life. What we don't realise is that it's all about where the line has been drawn, and eventually, no matter what your beliefs are, you will have to draw it somewhere. Some people just draw them a lot sooner, but shouldn't we at the very least tolerate their right to be more intolerable than we are?

Some things are just morally wrong. There is no 'gray' about it. Just because a culture holds something to be true, doesn't mean we have to celebrate it. The subjugation of females (including things like female circumcision), the extermination of races (the Holocaust, Rwanda, and most recently in Sudan), the murder of innocents (Matthew Shepherd) and other acts of violence are all examples of things that some people value that should not be tolerated in a civilised society.

So where do we draw this ever present line, without stepping on anyone's toes? If we believe that we can do so without offending someone, we are being naive. For each holds onto their beliefs, thinking they have what is true and it is the other that is mistaken. Some even go so far to convince others of the error of their ways, to 'save' them because their belief system is hurting them unbeknownst to them. Do we let each figure out their own, and risk the devastation it might bring? And if we really knew the truth, wouldn't we act like our fundamentalist friends and pressure, if not force it on them?

The Meaning of Life

Humans are interesting creatures. We share 95% percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, but what differentiates us from other animals is something that (at least, as of yet) cannot be measured biologically. We are different from other animals because of our vast and complicated system of communication. This system extends beyond other complex communications such as "the honey is this way" (bees) or "hey, let's mate" (most animals). Although the search for food and other needs is primary among humans (and some people never go beyond their primary needs), humans have developed a system not only to discuss things, but to discuss ideas.

I was contemplating this while looking at a fruit fly today. Fruit flies make excellent guinea pigs in the lab because of the fact that they multiply so quickly, and live very short lives. Looking at this fruit fly, I wondered if it knew that its life was so short, and if it contemplated this at all, the way us humans do.

We obsess over the meaning of life because of the one thing that scares us the most, that dark void that surrounds us all. One day, no matter what we do, we will all die. We can exercise and eat well to our heart's content, but tomorrow a car could take us out on our morning jog. We all know people who smoke like chimneys and live to be 100, and those whose lives are taken from them at young ages from various diseases. No one, at any age, is immune to death, and none of us know when we will go.

Do dogs and cats work as furiously as we do to discover life's meaning before they go? We are only here for a short time, so we who can must wonder why. Interesting, isn't it, that humans have such consciousness and pursue this elusive meaning so hard. It's as Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." What is God anyway, but the biggest 'meaning' people can give life?

We struggle to create meaning before we die, clinging to a belief system. Atheists and theists alike, all of us with at least one commonality besides our humanity, we all will die, and we all need some kind of reassurance of meaning, whether it's the meaning we create or the meaning we get from organised religion. Wars are fought, whether on real battlegrounds or intellectual ones, on who has the monopoly on truth. And if you think about it, it is a big deal. Each person has only a small length of time to figure out what is true and to live their lives according to that truth that we are risking a lot by letting each figure out their own. But then again, perhaps that is the only way it can be.

"As you struggle with the mystery of your death, you will discover the meaning of your life." M. Scott Peck [Further Down the Road Less Traveled]

New England Trancendentalism

Yesterday, while on the treadmill at my gym, I contemplated how odd treadmills and gyms are. Here I was, paying not a small sum annually to use a machine to help me run, when I could very well be doing it for free in the great outdoors. How silly that we need exercise at specific buildings in order to keep ourselves fit and healthy. Now I now that gyms are not new inventions, the origin, I believe, going back to ancient Greece, however I still think that modern gyms are products of modern society, especially when you consider treadmills. Paying for a running machine? In Walden we are mocked for working so hard just to travel, when if we simply traveled we would get where we were going much sooner. Now, we work hard so that we can run far and get nowhere.

This is the message of my dear New England philosophers, high on the romantic idealism of Nature with a capital N. Today, we live in concrete jungles and become concrete monsters. I grew up in a small town, so I know what I am missing. The benefit of Nature isn't some romantic ideal of communing with Mother Earth, but the complete solitude it offers us to commune with ourselves. (When has a tree ever phoned you in th middle of dinner?)

Perhaps it is because of my upbringing that I understand that solitude and loneliness are not the same thing. We are afraid to be alone. We are afraid of loneliness. But what is loneliness, really? I don't believe that we are that insecure that we believe we will never connect with another person again. Most people are not so socially inept as to be complete loners. No, I believe that the reason we wish to crowd ourselves with others and avoid solitude is to avoid our own selves.When people cannot bear to look in the abyss, they avoid doing so by living in cities where they have so much to do that there is no possibility of even thinking about it, except for that dull feeling that there must be something more.

"All miseries derive from not being able to sit in a room alone." -Pascal

Atropus, Lachesis and Clotho

School is a breeding ground for philosophy. My school is a somewhat rundown big brick building, built in the era when people believed that there were always going to be levels of enrollment similar to the baby-boom generation; alas, the building is mostly empty now. It's an inner-city school, not the "Dangerous-Minds-gangs-metal detectors-police officers" type inner city school, although I did see two police officers there the other day, but that was the first time this year. Although I am sure that some of the students are gang members, it's not as rampant as it could be. Still, the students come from low-income families and don't care about education, which is what differentiates it from other schools where the problems are much different. Today, one of my students got beat up by another student, and as much as my heart bleeds for all my students, I did not post this to vent my bleeding heart (It's on my sleeve anyway, it gets enough air as it is).

So where does this take us? Those familiar with the title of this post (I must admit ignorance, and God bless the Internet for helping me find those three names) know that they are the names of the Fates in Greek mythology. The violent student is your typical violent kid whose father is in jail, mother not around (whether by bad parenting or other reason, I do not know) and he is currently living with another relative. Can this boy escape his fate? Is he doomed, whether by Destiny or genetics, to end up like his father?

I would like to believe not; I wouldn't be a teacher if I thought each had his lot and that was so. It drove me crazy to be surrounded by so many sots during my post-secondary education. They had no right to be there except by virtue of the fact that they had a supportive home environment and a good school. They were naturally expected to go to university, and so they did. For many though, it was a waste of time and money as these dimwits fooled around, drank like crazy, partied and flunked out. So many other students, with less supportive home environments, schools where the majority of the population isn't even expected to graduate, let alone go on to post-secondary education could have benefited from having what these students just threw away! (as a side note, you must keep in mind that I did my degree in Education. These are people who are educating the future. A comment from one student flunking out was, "I'm already in Education, where can I go from here?" as if this program was the bottom of the barrel.) But still, there are some who manage to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" as the saying goes, and move on despite their beginnings.

My father always used to tell a story about 2 brothers that he knew. Their father was an abusive drunkard. One son grew up and became an abusive drunkard. He believed there was no other fate for him. The other grew up and refused to become like his father, and so did not. Anecdotal evidence aside, what is the point of this? If we say that the future is determined, we are setting ourselves up for failure. But if we say that the future is not determined, we neglect the difficulties that people face because of the situation that they are born into.

Existential Angst

Today's topic comes courtesy from one of my students, who saw something on a t-shirt and decided to copy it onto my chalkboard. Apparently unawares of its significance, he offended me greatly not only as a Jew, but as a human being.
If there is nothing, we are left hollow and empty. If there is nothing we can be sure of, even our perceptions, even the reality of our own selves, then to what moral standard can we hold ourselves? This is called existentialism, for those not in the know. Can we really turn our nose at events we find morally repugnant, such as the Holocaust? Who's to say what's right and what's wrong if we cannot even agree on basic truths?
The fundamental question that is usually asked is, "why do we exist?" To which the existentialists argue, there is no reason. (Really, it is a quite self-centered question to ask. This could only be asked by a people who believed that the universe literally revolved around them). Yet there is hope. For if life has no meaning, then we must work all the harder to create meaning and attempt to create a moral world.
Do I agree with them? We work so hard to establish meaning. We cling to our religion (or spirituality, whatever suits you best) and ask, "how can a good God (creator, spirit...) let (fill in the blank) happen?" The recent situation in Asia is a good example of this. We have difficulty enough understanding how sick-minded people can cause so much suffering that it is nearly impossible to understand natural disasters, where no one can be blamed. Except maybe God.

Philosophy, besides its literal meaning the love of wisdom, is a search for meaning. Perhaps though, we are approaching it the wrong way. Why must we find meaning in life? Will it assuage our suffering? For this is the purpose we cling to our beliefs. If there is joy in another life after this one, we feel better. If we can see the silver lining to the dark cloud (the restored belief in humanity's humaneness after the tsunami being a good example), we feel better. If we knew, if we truly knew the truth, we would feel better (the truth will set you free). Uncertainty drives us crazy. It is the black abyss facing us again, and we cannot look in. What if we did though? What if there really was nothing and we finally faced it?

The Thinker

Shall I offer up small talk until I begin with the meal? I could discuss the weather today, which is fairly decent, for January. I don't much care for sports, so how the team did yesterday I wouldn't know. I only look at the sports section if the comics or Ann Landers is located there. In fact, that's all I read in the paper besides the front page, so the news is out of the question. So then, let us begin.

"I think, therefore I am," says Descartes, and this aphorism begins the basis of all of his philosophy. Cartesian geometry aside, which my students would be happy to do without, perhaps this one statement presumes too much.

Why must we begin anew? Why do we presume that nothing is really real? All is illusion, blows a wind from the East. There is no reality, there is only our perception of it. Look at an object. Is that object there? Or do you only see it as there? Ultimately, it is because you use your senses to perceive this object that you think it is real. But can we trust our perceptions to be true? I, for one, do not trust them in the least. To state it simply, have you ever wondered if what you saw as green someone else saw as red? What colour is it then? Whose perception is more accurate? And if this is applicable to things which are not so important to the world, like the perceived colour of things, how much more does it make life difficult when deciding on the reality and subsequent truth of things like love, salvation and other matter which wars are fought over?
("I refute it thus," says Johnson as he kicks the stone. Of course, his philosophy was more of the common kind, like insulting his Scottish brethren).

Let us come back to Descartes. We can be sure that we exist, because there are thoughts occurring. Some being, regardless of what we can know about that being, is doing the thinking. There cannot be thoughts without someone to think them. This idea is somewhat flawed, as Hume points out. The idea that thoughts come from someone who thinks them is causational. Those familiar with the thinking of Hume know that causation is not something that can be rationally shown to be true. The standard method of showing this is with billiard balls. Imagine a pool table. The white ball hits the coloured ball and the coloured ball moves. We would say that the white ball caused the coloured ball to move. Where, empirically, did we see the causation? We see the white ball move, we see it touch the coloured ball, we see the coloured ball move. We see the thinker, we see the thinking, we see the thought. We assume that the thinker caused the thought to occur.

This to come back to the point made in the last post, is there really a self? Is is possible that the world is just a collective bunch of thoughts without thinkers?

Introductions, please

I must admit that I very rarely do things I deem "popular." Everyone and his dog seems to have a blog these days. Yet, I feel that I can participate in this without feeling overly counter-culture for a few reasons, namely, that I have a regular webpage that I update using HTML, that I keep a hand-written journal (using a calligraphy pen I might add) and the fact that I have things to say that people should hear.
It amazes me how people have readily accepted the tools of the nerdly classes as their own. Computers, the Internet have all now been bastardized by people who can't get enough pornography and IM. At least the nerdly inclined are profiting from it. As they say, "The Geeks shall inherit the Earth."
Within these two paragraphs you have been introduced to a few of the characteristics of my personality, like it or leave it (leave it, by all means go read someone else's blog, what do I care?). Pretentiousness and anti-pop-culture combine into a superior form of nerdliness that begets a person so extreme that you love me or hate me. Quite alright, as I tend to feel strongly towards people as well. Frankly, no comment anyone could post would hurt my feelings. As if anything some nobody said matters.
Because really, that's all we are on the Internet. Nobodies. We post into some void; words appear around the world on the screens of people we don't even know. It's not so much that we can pretend to be whoever we want on the Internet (although we can) but the fact that we don't even know who we are really, in real life, to be able to present a person to those we meet that we aren't even truly interacting with. Frankly, is there an actual self? What defines it? Where did it come from? How do we know if it is our 'true' self? With all this talk of self actualization, finding out who we really are to live our lives to the fullest, I propose that we really don't know who we are. To know, we must look deep inside the abyss of our black souls, a thought too frightening for most to even conceive of. I think what scares us the most is looking to find nothing at all...