The God Debate

First off, I would question whether life's biggest queston actually is: is God real? But more of that later on.

I would like to say that I have noticed in the past few months that I do not necessarily read things or listen to things and glean from them what I'm meant to, and I'm not willing to debate them under the presumption that they are true. I'm more inclined to attempt to learn something about the person writing or speaking based on how they wrote and what they said, and put the conclusion I arrive at at the forefront of thought processes about that particular data. Whether or not my conclusion is true, it is obvious to any skeptic (we should all be skepics) that everything ever written or spoken carries some level of misinformation with it. Whether intended or not, each word spoken and each action taken carries an inflection of our opinions and bears the "truth" we speak in directions other than towards the truth. I am as guilty as they are, and so are you, my dedicated readers. (at this point you're feeling the sarcasm)

As I read I imagined myself in the room with the two men. Having seen Mr. Warren speak before, I've seen his practiced mannerisms before an audience. But in my meager experience on board our boulder of a ship sailing the cosmos, I have seen that there is a massive difference between stage mannerisms and real life mannerisms. Based on the words spoken, and the inflections I imagined, I see Mr. Warren as condescending, so firm in his belief that he cannot even contemplate for a moment that anything Mr. Harris says is worth listening to- so he is not listening to garner anything but the appropriate response. Mr. Harris, I imagine as considering himself an intellectual (he's working on a Ph. D) and as of course correct. But also someone who has spent his life rationalizing and quantifying, and of course to justify both you need to acquire data. So perhaps he's collecting data if nothing else, and so listening for perhaps a bit more than Mr. Warren is.

So of course, these presumptions put me on Mr. Harris's bench, as anyone who goes to someone else's office aware that they will accomplish nothing deserves a little of my respect and based on my presumptions, is listening harder. That said. My bias is established. Lets also say that what Warren says is largely theoretical, undeniably so, it is theological. (they both have theo. Obviously living in the same house.) Mr. Harris, on the other hand, sprinkles all that he says with actual information based on what he knows. I'm assuming he knows a lot, and by a lot I mean a lot more than Mr. Warren, and a lot more than me. (knowledge is not wisdom)

I notice the contradictions that each makes on himself and in my mind, whoever made more contradictions lost the argument. So Warren lost.

Well, how? He only said what the bible does. Precisely.

The Bible is a book written by multiple people inspired in multiple ways by what they perceive as the same God. They moreover, are humans just like we are, and just as guilty of inflecting in what they write themselves and their faults. The Bible is a faulted text. It holds truths, indesputably. But also fallacies, and these fallacies, just like the people responsible for them, contradict each other. Warren as a faithful (blinded) believer, must believe all of it. So he can't help contradicting himself. As seen in his specifics about science in the Bible, as example. He says that he is aware he might be wrong, but never asks any questions of Harris about atheism that are designed to educate himself in ways that may turn him an atheist. He is not okay with being wrong. At the end of it all, his final thought is about a gamble. He simply isn't willing to lose is he? Well whats all this crap about faith and the life of Jesus being fulfilling? Is he doing it because he believes or because he can't stand the thought of possibly having nothing at all?

To disagree with his argument styling, he requests that Harris not cut him off, but cuts Harris off. Bad etiquette always upsets me.

Harris of course has his fallacies. He as well holds that he is open to being wrong, but will not let himself be turned to the faithful side of things. He says that atheism has a terrible PR campaign, while he himself contributes to its bad compaigning.

Harris is always on the attack, he always has something new to say, he is never on the defense. Warren is always on the defense and can never attack atheism. This proves either that atheism is inherently correct, as it is unassailable, or that it holds so little truth it must gain its truth through attacking what it disagrees with. It proves that either the religion standpoint, particularly christian religion, is indefensible, or that it does not need to attack those that disagree to maintain its importance.

Either way, I would say it doesn't matter. Faith is irrelevent and whether god exists makes no difference. What matters is what you choose to say and do. The motivations matter less than the good you manage to do and the evil you fail to see yourself doing. Eyes clear of anything are needed to notice evil in life. The faithful, the blind, need to clear their vision. The angry, the apathetic, the nonbelievers need to clear their vision. Whether God is real, it matters not. What matters is that we all do our best to do what is right and what is good and to help others. I don't care why you do it, only that you do. And nothing else matters. All this talk, all this debate, is wasted energy. Why do we waste our time debating whether our motivations are true? Just act. Why do we waste time explaining our motivations when it does not matter, and what matters is what we are motivated to do.

Neither man won the debate.

And it doesn't matter.

AHS TOK HOMEPAGE!!!!!!!

I'm just noticing the comment that Mr. Wilcox made that he hopes class will be like no class we have ever taken made me excited for a roller coaster ride the first time I read it but I am now noticing that although the class is like no class I have ever taken it is not a roller coaster ride.

That was a run-on sentence.
I will not fix it.

How many and who of your high school friends and acquaintances do you think you might know in five years? Ten years? Twent seven years? Thirty two years? Sixty four years? I think everyone should keep a running list. And when you get there, check back. See how close you were to right. And then judge how much of it was your fault.

Is there a god? Why or why not? Is religion necessary in the current age?

Are you afraid of death? How often do you think about it?

What is the most important natural number? Is that a trick question?

Will I do much more than ask questions in this journal? No.

Can you describe yourself in twenty pages without contradicting yourself? Ten pages? Five pages? Three pages? A page?

Is school difficult for you, or do you just freak out too much?

How did you answer that? What emotions drove your answer?

...did you tell the truth?

Are you judgemental?

If you are, is that so wrong? Why?

When challenged, how often do you rise to said challenge? Why? Is it always worth it?

When is it and when is it not?

Is it more impressive to be able to question or to be able to simply accept?

Which is more difficult for you?

Did you notice the conundrum in question thirteen and its response?

If you didn't before I asked, are you embarrassed about it? Does it make you want to kill yourself, eat a popsicle, crawl in a hole, or tear my eyes out most?

If you did, was it funny when I asked, and are you proud of yourself?

Is that pride well deserved?

How long did it take you to read the questions so far? Not paying attention? Too bad, huh. If only we had computers in our heads that allowed us uninterupted access to all things electronic and kept an uncensored record of our lives.

Would that be a bad invention?

Would you want that?

Does that scare you?

Can you tell where this line of questioning is going?

Do you think I'm done with my english quotes right now? Are you or were you? If the blog fails to inform of the time of posting, it is now 8:35pm on the evening of the not so much sabbath but sorta sabbath, Sunday, and the project is due tomorrow.

Is it more important to work hard or party? After all, we are only here once.

Which is more or less selfish? Why? Which are you?

What is intended in the word "party"?

Bored yet?

Will you post a blog that answers all of these questions?

If you say yes, will you post said blog in one, two, three, or should you really milk it, four journals?

What do you think that says about you?

Keep in mind, who you associate with and how you associate with them defines you in the eyes of others. How do you think you are defined? Did you intend this? Is that a just opinion, is it skewed by how you view yourself, and do you feel disgusted or are you exalting, and what does that say about you?

If you feel disgusted because you haven't showered today, shower and then revisit the question.

How many questions have I asked you?

Did you really just count them?

Are you counting these too? Should you?

Which is worse-murder or rape. Why? Does it matter how either occurs?

Do you consider yourself pragmatic or idealistic?

Which are you really?

Do you consider yourself hard-working, intelligent, determined, and independent?

Are you? Or are you arrogant, over-rewarded, stubborn, and delusional?

IB or AP? I expect rather ubiquitous answers of IB.

If you're still with me in this monotonous broadcast, did you find the preceding questions revealing, interesting, humorous, complicated, easy to answer, difficult, or arbitrary and redundant?

What does that say about you?

Now, what does it really mean about you?

Still not sure? Go out and kill someone, and then rape someone, and see which makes you feel more guilty. But alas that appears to be against the law and requires a sort of devotion to experimentation that I don't think any of us have, and I do not want to be killed or raped, so I take my request back. Don't.

Who is your biggest role model?

Now be honest with yourself. Who is your biggest role model, and is it(he/she) a real person?

Are they a person at all?

Do you honestly believe that Chaucer was a genius? Or did he have too much time on his hands? Was Hypocrates just a hypocrite?

Can you stand to read on?

You're probably sitting anyway, so I hope you didn't say yes if you are, because I now demand that you do if you said yes.

Please excuse any spelling errors that occured before now.

Define please.

Define sorry.

Following that, translate them literally into another language. Having any difficulty?

Although "I forgive you" is the most correct response to "I am sorry" it seems pompous and arrogant to our ears. Why is that?

Have I assumed that you are perhaps guided strongly by your emotions and need to hear(read) things more than once in order to answer them as honestly as possible?

Was I right?

Are you angry?

Now was I right?

Did that make you smile?

Will you really answer all of these?

Do you think its worth it? Its sort of like a free journal entry....

Will anyone bother asking me these same questions?

God only knows...if there is one! HA! pWn3d!

If only I knew what I meant by that...

Are our teachers worth more?

Well, are they? Come on now, out with it! But alas, you cannot speak through my fingers (not only do they not have mouths, you seem to lack mind-control, you anonymous reader you) nor will you comment on this post. As that would be stupid. Why read someone else's blog and then comment on it? You might actually end up having an intellectual discussion with the blogger (frogger, great game) and that just will not do! Regardless, are our teaches actually worth more?

I will begin by saying that I distrust all governmentally run organizations not because I do not appreciate the things that they can do for me but because I understand that without competition there is no such thing as quality control and insist that the government not weigh down their systems with useless money they spend bureaucratically running things but instead pay independent companies to run their services and audit them at the very least annually. My proof of the lack of quality control lay in the idea of a ten year(I am most familiar with our government's education system, and so have the most right and ability to critique it. Why aren't they asking us how we feel about the whole system when we are most intimate with it...? I fear I will never know.), a function in schools that by definition destroys the concept of quality control. It basically affirms that after ten years of work any given teacher can stop trying, relax and rest assured that their job is secure. There is no quality control in that the teachers rarely come face to face with their customers, the taxpayers, and taxpayers understand that they cannot avoid paying the taxes that support the educational system and so tend not to see teachers as people they are paying to do them a service. So quality or the lack thereof can go unnoticed and run rampant. I will also note, that although there are many teachers I would perhaps stamp the "not quality ensured" symbol on, there are also many that I would not. As much as I despise the man, Docta Dave was a great teacher, and I learned a lot. Mrs. Stroh on the other hand, did nothing, and went to far as to not even grade our papers. But she could not be fired, and the proofs we had for her not grading our papers could not be shown for fear of our getting in trouble. And so the system tends to fail. But I digress.

I think that some of our teachers are indeed worth more, but that many others are not worth more. I will not dance around the names either. I would say that Funk Master P-Rez is doing his students a disservice when he places more value in his union negotiations than his teaching. I believe that all teachers, by not being available to help their students because of union negotiations and rules, are doing their students a disservice. It seems to me that in all the humbug about raises here and there, teachers have forgotten that their job above all else is to teach and germinate the minds of the young people they work with with intellectual thoughts and tendencies. I would say that Mr. Burdett, in disposing of a competitive seating system in his orchestras and in general refusing to recommend students that wish to enroll in the IB Programme in order to save his orchestra program is acting irrationally and if he isn't fired he should at least have his salary lowered. Why? Because by destroying competitive seating he is ruining the motivations of the orchestra members to care at all about how they play and telling them that it is okay to be inept at playing because it doesn't matter how good you are, you might still be in the back "to help the worse players". This would infuriate me and I'm infinitely glad that I quit orchestra. I've heard that one of my fellow students that I hold in high esteem that remains in orchestra, whose name starts with an R, uses the period to eat. By refusing to recommend his students for the IB Programme in a reactionary manner he is hurting their overall education, which as an educator is opposite to what his goal should be. So no, he is not worth more. Mr. Pinzone, from my experience in his creative writing class, is not worth more. He fails to teach and looks as though he doesn't care. Surmising that he doesn't care, he wont mind losing his job or a chunk of his salary. But again, I digress. Accusations mean nothing without actions.

There are those that deserve more, however. For instance, Mrs. Walker, who has taught me more math than any other math teacher here at the esteemed AHS, deserves more. Whatever the seniors' opinions on her, I don't care. I'm getting something out of math for the first time. From what I hear, Mr. Rakow deserves more. I wouldn't know, but it seems he does. Mrs Pavicic, simply because she is willing to spend as much time as necessary to teach a student that needs help what they need to know. There is a lot of worth in that. She is doing her best to do her job. Mrs. Lindley, for setting the bar higher than any english teachers I had before her and actually teaching us how to write. And finally, the greatest raindeer of all, Mr. Radke, for shoving more history than we may ever need to know down our throats with a smile, ensuring that we do well on the AP US History test, if we put in reciprocal effort.

So yes, our teachers are worth more, but no, our teachers are not worth more.

Culture

In passing, the quote, "That's not cultured, that's just foreign." inspired this journal.

What is culture, and how can one be cultured or uncultured?

Culture, as I'm going to arbitrarily define it, is simply a sum of experiences and traditions. It can be applied to one person, a small group of people, a large group of people, and so on and so forth. So calling someone cultured seems redundant. Everyone has a sum of experiences and traditions and it is too subjective a subject matter to say that one sum has any greater value than another unless one simply bases it on quantity, in which case the only way to be more cultured than another is by being older than another. By this definition as well, there is no such thing as being uncultured and by that extension culture as a comparative substance is, again, redundant. You cannot exist without a culture or with any more culture than anyone else. Culture is so broad and yet so specific, it cannot and should not be seen as a way to place one above another. It is not better or worse, but simply is.

For the record, I count Nobuo Uematsu a better composer than Peter Frampton and someone who listens to Uematsu more cultured than someone who listens to Frampton, that both are of value in music culture, and that someone who listens to both is even further cultured than their peers.

But no, cultured is not a viable comparative adjective.

Funk Master P-Rez

Who is Funk Master P-Rez, and where exactly is he from? Is cuban a language(most definitely not, a dialect...perhaps) And most pressing, why am I taking IB Music, and what exactly am I intended to learn in it? The answer to the last of course, is because I could not enroll in AP Music Theory(Mr. Wasson is not teaching it anyway, so whats the point?) and I am not intended to learn anything at all, but more intended to benefit from the experience and become more culturally aware. I suppose for this reason our Cuban DJ makes sense as the instructor for this class, but I would affirm that in mannerisms he is thoroughly American in nature. Not because I am aware of what American in nature means, but because it is an extremely pliable term that can be applied to anyone. American culture is defined by rampant sectionalism, partisan activity, knowing and not knowing, unity and division, cultured and uncultured(what is that, by the way?), intelligent and unintelligent, driven and lazy, persistent and determined or obsessive and stubborn, and of course, white, black, latino, various eastern and western european sorts, Indian, native american(very few now, we did a fantastic job exterminating that particular race), asian at large, and the racism and disputes over racism that go with the territory. So in essence, anyone and everyone can be of the "american nature" and probably is. I think I forgot rampant capitalism. And conspiracies. But I digress. I fear that we will never know Funk Master P-Rez's true origins or name, or the purpose of his anecdotes mid-lesson. All that we can be sure of is that he is explicitly American in nature, and that his leading of the Union charge vs. their Confederate overlords is taking from his class-time quality. And that it bothers me.

The nature of judgement

My last four journals have centered around judgement, and convey simply the act of judgement. They were inspired by my reading of The Fall. (Fantastic novel. Read it.) Also inspired by The Fall are my thoughts on the nature of judgement. It is condemned by many but unavoidable by all. It is something that we do instictively on some levels, but often is depicted as the device of the divine. What is judgement? The most basic form of judgement is simply for survival. We judge how far we are from objects. We judge the distance we need to move. We judge whether we should speed through the orange light or screech to a halt. We judge with very very simple things, and then we judge with things slightly more comlicated. We judge our peers and elders in instinctual self-preservation. Should I befriend this person? Can I trust them? Will they condemn me? Will I condemn them? How will our association affect others perception of me? Of course, this sort of judgement brings about stereotypes and broad generalizations. The human mind cannot survive without compartmentalizing, this is unavoidable. But judgement becomes more complex yet. Moral judgement is passed on people by the divine, the educated, the privileged, and in fact all. This sort of judgement can have lasting effects or not effect at all. To be behind bars, or free. To be yelled at, talked at, scolded, rewarded and looked up to. Judgement is everywhere and affects everything. To condemn judgement is to condemn yourself, everyone else, and everything else. It is necessary and unavoidable(so we might as well get good at it). In the Fall it is implied through the main character and narrator that all mankind spends the entirety of its existence avoiding judgement. It implies that everyone behaves out of the simply wish that they be judged in a positive manner, and will do anything to be judged as such. It addressed the fallacies of friendship and the futility of happiness, the lack of a universal purpose. It makes the point that the things we do in life are far outweighed by the things we fail to do; by decision, laziness, or ineptitude. With this view of the world, lying must run rampant. If everything is about the image of judgement, then no one will ever see past the canvases the story of our lives are painted on to see the truth of who we are without further analytical judgement based on little fact at all. Why do we avoid who are? If everyone is filth then why hide beneath a small gilded surface? If no one is filth, then what to lose by shredding the facade from view? I do not think that judgement should be avoided, but embraced. I think that one should be honest with oneself and embrace one's faults and ineptitudes, and be as critical and judgemental to one's own soul as one is to the rest of the world. One should never pass up a chance to do good, and one should understand that one's life is no greater than the next. Most importantly, one should paint the truth and only the truth on one's canvas, penitent and unashamed.

DJ4

Dear Journal, 10/28
I realize that for the past few entries I have been judging others and their actions. I have been noticing the duplicity in their lives, and finding that they are inherently hypocritical and do things only for themselves in one way or another. I wonder why I do this, why do I judge others and not myself? I judge them because in judging them I feel that somehow recognizing their faults makes mine disappear. I do not give at all to people in poverty, and I might make the excuse that I cannot at my age, but deep down I know there are ways. I find that in calling them hypocrites I feel less like one, when in reality it makes me more like one. I judge them and yet I fear judgment myself. I fear that my hypocrisies might be revealed and that I might be worse a person than I am when revealed as when hidden. I judge to cover my own faults, to avoid judgment myself. If I point fingers then maybe none will be pointed at me. In truth, we are all hypocrites, and there is nothing anyone can do to avoid it. At least, this is my perception, as I am so totally inept to overcome my hypocrisy that I cannot fathom that anyone could be capable. In all this I have come to the conclusion that all humanity is inherently hypocritical, due to the duplicity seen in all human actions.

DJ3

Dear Journal, 10/27
I told my dad about these thoughts of mine about Bill Gates and Bono, and he characterized me as a cynic. He asked me if I really thought that everyone acted always with the ulterior motive of personal gain, and that if I did, did I really think that even the pope sought personal gain? Upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that yes, I do think that everyone, even the pope, acts for personal gain whether they know they do or not. With the pope, there is an obvious ambition in the pope. He is the pope; no one is born the pope. There is a hierarchy that one has to climb in order to become the pope. He had to start as a deacon, and then be ordained as a priest. From there he had to become a bishop, and then an archbishop. Then, he had to become a cardinal in order to vote on who should be the pope and to be voted on to become pope. I don’t know exactly how the decision process works when the cardinals decide who the pope will be, but I think there must be some sort of speech making involved, else they wouldn’t know who to vote for amongst them and the decision making would be haphazard. So the pope must have ambition to get to be the pope, and he must want the power, fame, and influence that the pope possesses. So yes, even the pope works for himself in his actions, and is as inherently hypocritical as both Bill Gates and Bono.

DJ2

Dear Journal, 10/ 24
The last entry I made in my journal was about Bill Gates, and how I think that his actions in charity are hypocritical. Along this same train of thought, I’ve been thinking about Bono and his being Person of the Year along with Bill and Melinda Gates in 2005. He as well spent the majority of his life acquiring wealth and fame. He did so differently, as a musician and performer, but the results are the same. He is one of the richest and most famous people in the world. He wears custom designer clothing everywhere he goes, and of course has his signature sunglasses. He owns at least two houses and a hotel, but he is also a well known philanthropist in Africa. He shows largely the same hypocrisy as Bill Gates, where he lives in excess and splendor but gives to the poor of Africa. He walks through the mud roads in Africa and sees children dressed in nothing but old shirts dressed in his designer clothes and with his signature sunglasses. I judge him as a hypocrite in this, as if he truly wanted to give to the poor of Africa he would give more, and only live a normal life because he has given so much to the poor.

DJ1

Dear Journal, 10/21
Today in class we talked about Bill Gates and how he has been the richest man in the world for sixteen years, and still is the richest man in the world according to Forbes. I have been thinking about this and how it relates to his philanthropist efforts in Africa, and wondering why he still has so much money, if he is such a philanthropist. Time magazine made him Person of the Year along with his wife and Bono in 2005, they must have found his generosity worth something. It is true that he gave twenty-eight billion dollars to charity over his lifetime. And yet, he is still the richest man in the world. I would think that someone who wanted to better the lives of others in any way they could would find themselves not giving enough of their money if they had as much money as Bill Gates had. Upon further research, I realized that Bill Gates’s home is worth one-hundred-and-twenty-five-million dollars. How can he live in such excess and visit the countries in Africa where his charity operates and not feel guilty? I know if I had as much money as he did I would. I would feel filthy while I swam in the sixty-foot pool he has in his house. I find his actions hypocritical, and see that his life has been mostly based on the acquisition of wealth, and that his charitable actions are an afterthought.

The Fall

In The Fall Albert Camus, who is marked as an existentialist, expresses a nearly nihilistic view that there is no such thing as an action of pure intention, and that there is no such thing as true happiness. He asserts this through his main character, who speaks to the reader conversationally throughout the text. Jean-Baptiste has spent his life floating on clouds and living free of judgment, all the while judging others. At the pivotal moment in the novel, Jean-Baptiste bears witness to a woman jumping from a bridge in Paris to her death in the river below. He cannot bring himself to save her, even though he tries to live his life generously and prestigiously. This ineptitude of his slowly brings him to his knees, as he increasingly is forced to judge his own morality and verify whether he truly resides above the mass of the human race. The book is filled with the hypocrisies of the man, and his own personal judgments of himself. With each example the reader is intended to (and does) think about their own life, and all the hypocrisies within it. They judge themselves as Jean-Baptiste judges himself. The novel culminates with Jean-Baptiste describing the profession he works, that he named at the beginning of the novel and for which the story of his life is supposedly a necessary anecdote, as a judge-penitent. As he describes his profession as one where he passes judgment on those he chooses by judging himself, and so painting a mask of all and yet no one, truly a mirror to hold before his subject (the reader) and encourage self-judgment. He professes that as he judges himself he gains the right to judge another more thoroughly, and prides himself in his ability to do so. He holds himself above humanity even as he has their faults, simply because he knows that he has their faults and that their faults are shared, and that humanity does not know this. He holds that there is no human action that is not double in nature, that no action has no ulterior motive, and that there is no true happiness, but that he has found happiness in embracing both sides of every action, his good and bad motivations. It becomes clear that the reader is his chosen subject, and that he has just passed judgment on the reader simply by passing judgment on himself. Is there no true happiness? Can there be no simple human action? Is Albert Camus correct in his views?

A bit of Existence

What is the purpose of existence? I believe that the purpose of existence is defined by the one in existence, and beings are defined by their emotions. Likes and dislikes are the output of emotional reaction, and even if something makes sense that does not mean that one will do it unless they are driven by a want or a need, and those are simply output of emotion as well. But we need to live! only because we want to, and we want to because there is an emotional connotation to both life and death. Emotion is everything, and logic is an afterthought that beings in existence invented to try to explain their emotions. I feel, therefore I am. A fox may not think, but it exists. It feels.
So by ascertaining the purpose of existence-a simple amalgamation of emotions that transpire to consolidate their messages-I can assume that I exist, and that so do all other living things. But what about things that are not alive. What about the chair I’m sitting on or the computer I’m writing on. They do not feel. (Or do they…will there be an uprising in the near future? I’m sure Pixar will animate it.) So do objects that are not alive exist? Do the things in your imagination exist? They do not think for themselves, and they do not feel anything you do not want them to feel, but they still exist. So the chair does not feel, and it could be as imagined as the world around us. It could be as imagined as we may be, but everything in an imagination still exists even if it does not take a physical form, so the chair exists. If the chair exists without feeling, then so might I exist without feeling? Yes. So I do not exist because I think, and I do not exist because I feel, I exist because I am.
If the reader disagrees with this, answer how can I not exist? How can you not exist? If this is not existence, then what is? What does not existing feel like?

About a Boy 2

The main character in About a Boy says that every man is an island, and that the modern age is the time to be an island. Examining the second part of the statement, is the modern age really the best time to be an island? In a sense it is, because technology has made everything about life easier. There are things anyone can buy that would make leaving the home largely unnecessary, for instance, refrigerators ensure that one would have to leave less, televisions can provide entertainment that does not make one leave the home, microwaves, ovens, stoves make cooking easy. There are not a whole lot of things that one cannot accomplish inside the home just as easily as one could outside the home. In a sense it is not, because it is harder to find places in the world where one might remain undisturbed or that it may be legal for one to simply live off the land. If one does not leave one’s home, one cannot exist alone without relying on the ingenuity of others and the technology they create. To exist alone using the technology afforded to one through connects to society, is one truly alone? It is easier to avoid excessive contact with other human beings if one chooses to live within the cities, but it is harder to actually attain a completely independent existence in the wilderness, mostly because mankind has destroyed so much of it.

About a Boy 1

I was listening to the soundtrack to the movie About a Boy this weekend, which got me thinking about the movie. In the beginning of the movie, John Donne is quoted as saying “No man is an island”, and the main character disagrees. He supposes that every man is an island, and that the modern age is the best time to be an island. Focusing on the first half of the statement, is every man an island? On the one hand, no one will ever see into another’s head totally. No one will ever know exactly what another is thinking all of the time, and one will never be able to relate to anyone else completely. One is always alone in one’s own head, so how is one not an island? On the other hand, one cannot live without others. One cannot come by everything that one needs to survive without interacting somehow with others, and many of the joys of existence cannot be experienced without others. So how can one be an island?
I believe that every person is an island, but that every person is defined largely by the things they do when they visit other islands.

Leviathan

I read Leviathan this weekend, a book set in an alternate version of World War I. In the book there are two opposing sides to the war, the Darwinists, Britain, France, and Russia, and the Clankers, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. The Darwinists are follows of Darwin, who in this reality not only theorized about evolution but discovered the “threads of life” as in DNA, and how to mold it to make entirely new species. The Clankers are far ahead of their time in mechanics and have made giant machines that act as land battleships. The book is told through the eyes of Aleksander, the fictional child of Franz Ferdinand, and Deryn, a girl who has joined the British air fleet (she is stationed on a massive flying whale that is an ecosystem in itself). Around the middle of the book the air whale that Deryn is on crashes near the abandoned castle that Aleksander is hiding in in Switzerland. Aleksander goes to help them, but the entire time he is aboard the whale he is disgusted by it, and views it as a godless fabrication of what should be.
In reality though, how are the Darwinists animals any worse than the killing machines of the Clankers? An animal, strange or not, has some sort of feeling, and it’s alive. Something alive has the capacity to learn and change, and to make its own decisions at least to some extent. If it is alive it can find a way to coexist without totally destroying everything it touches. However, a machine has no capacity for learning or feeling. It cannot make any decisions its pilot or mechanic does not make for it. It cannot stop killing, as that is its purpose, and it will just as easily kill its creator as it will its creator’s enemy. While interfering with the genetic coding of nature seems to be rather godless, creating something for the singular purpose of warfare seems to be a lot more godless.

Cuisine

I think that American cuisine is insanely boring. There aren’t many spices or even dishes to work with. Those spices we do work with are taken from other cuisines. To me, a hamburger is boring. I couldn’t go to a restaurant and get a burger and justify that it was worth the eight dollars, when I could easily make something of equal or higher quality at home with little to no training. To go to and Indian restaurant is way more justified to me. I wouldn’t know where to begin to make any of the dishes I could buy there, and I would find many more spices and flavors there. To me, eating from a largely American or western diet would be very monotonous, and I couldn’t stand doing it for very long. I wish I had more options for cuisine open to me, and that I had to dietary autonomy to be eating more Middle Eastern, Indian, and Asian cuisines.

Analyzing Literature

In literature, or at the very least in high school literature, the books to be analyzed are far overanalyzed. Admittedly, there are some novels that should be analyzed heavily and are written to be analyzed heavily. Beowulf is not one of them. An Anglo-Saxon tale of heroism and the supernatural, tinted with whimsical worship by the first chronicler has little applicable meaning in my life. There are no tangible lessons- evident in its original purpose as cheap entertainment. How this tale wormed its way into the heads of literary connoisseurs as some great masterpiece escapes me. Perhaps the first translator, frustrated with the amount of time he spent on the epic and having received no intangible value, forced it upon his colleagues in a mad attempt to redeem the time he wasted. Or perhaps it found its way to fame along a simpler path: by riding the waves of mankind’s fascination with wealth, violence, and ale. I think our disillusioned English teachers should find us some literature that might just teach us something if it captures our attention, and not analyze it so much that we leave its bleeding body pulped on the floor, its face unrecognizable and its voice irretrievable.

Religion and Violence

Religion has started a huge amount of the violence on this planet. This I find contradictory as religion for me is a set of morals, and those morals tell me not to kill other people or engage in violent activity. As far as I know, other religions generally say that violence is not the answer as well. I suppose that a problem could be that people take their religions too literally, and read things into them that aren’t meant to be read into. It could also be that the parts of religions that appeal to our natural human greed create more feeling than the part of religions that offer guidelines and morals. As with followers of Islam who kill people who believe other things than them in order to get into Jannah, and as with Christians who kill people who believe other things than them in order to get into Heaven. Perhaps it is best to first understand the morals that religion tries to present us, and then delve deeper into its traditions if one so chooses. I personally believe that religions exists to encourage people to live better lives in order to create a more perfect and loving world, and think that violence has no place in this world or the next, should there be one.

Justice vs. Forgivness

Justice and forgiveness are generally viewed both as tools and attitudes of benign individuals and organizations. And yet, they are complete opposites.

Justice- the administering of deserved punishment or reward

Forgiveness- to grant pardon, absolve

So why do we as people view justice and forgiveness as two tools of righteousness? What makes us think that justice is anything more than glorified revenge? Justice is perhaps humanity’s way of trying to keep itself clean, and trying to encourage good behavior; to keep itself up to a moral standard. This purpose seems right, but who delivers justice? Is there some greater part of humanity that does us this favor? Who brings them justice? Even if there was, it wouldn’t quite matter, as everyone deals their own justice. And all of us obviously have different perspectives, and so all different views of justice. And each one of us deals our version of justice to those we think deserve it. Are we righteous in doing so?
To be fair, is forgiveness not just glorified wimpiness? It allows those who cause unrest and commit vile acts to go unpunished. It allows them the opportunity to indulge in criminal activity again and again. Therefore, instead of sending the message that righteousness be upheld, the message is sent that it is okay. But if everyone held to forgiveness, there would be no one to commit criminal acts. And moreover, forgiveness is a harder idea and action to get the mind used to, and I’ve always had the impression that things that use more effort are perhaps more worthwhile. Forgiveness puts an end to revenge. So is forgiveness the greatest of all good action, or is justice?
Is justice a wolf dressed in grandma’s clothes, or is forgiveness simply being irresponsible? I’m not totally sure which is the correct course of action, or if discretion should be used between them. I don’t know if there is a happy medium. I do however, lean toward forgiveness.

Emma Goldman

“It takes less mental effort to condemn than to think.” –Emma Goldman

“The majority cares little for ideals and integrity. What it craves is display.” –Emma Goldman

Suppose that Goldman is right, and it takes less mental effort to condemn than to think. Then why did she find it necessary to condemn? She was perhaps so consumed by her own self-righteousness that she could not see that she was what she preached against. She was one who condemned others. She condemned the majority instead of the minority, but really what is the difference? Both are simply a group of people.
I have found that most people view themselves as the minority-them and all their friends- and are constantly condemning the majority. And we are taught to. Not directly- we are taught to speak our minds. So we all condemn each other in an attempt to be ourselves- to be different. Is the only solution to hypocrisy to be silent? I don’t think that a human being is capable of being silent. But condemnation cannot be the solution. It creates anger and arguments and violence, usually to no recognizable resolution.
Actions speak louder than words- a sentiment I’m sure most people say that they agree with. A sentiment we are largely told to live by. Live your morals, lead by example. Everyone says that they believe those things. But those things are harder to do than to say, and we find ourselves speaking our morals and trying to lead by telling, and when these methods don’t work condemnation is created.
I personally think we should live as we deem righteous, and not spew condemnations left and right simply because we disagree. To be the true minority, and a true thinker, one must try harder to act and not speak, and then to act with restraint. To realize that perhaps the self is not the most righteous being alive, and that one’s judgment should not always be given.

The Natives and the Spanish

My history reading tonight is the starter for this journal. The reading talks about the horrible treatment of the indigenous peoples of Central and South American by the Spanish. The Spanish who were capable of such cruelties were Catholic. This spoke to me especially because I myself am Catholic, and it brought me to questioning how someone who theoretically believed in the same moral core that I do, could be capable of such cruelties. I suppose that perhaps they lacked conviction- but I also suppose that they were just as influenced by their environments as any human being. They were raised and lived in a culture that emphasized greed and domination- and so they emphasized greed and domination (so says the text). In contrast, the Native Americans lived in a society emphasizing hospitality and openness (so says the text). It made me reaffirm my opinion from an earlier journal. I think forgiveness is much more important that justice- for one cannot show forgiveness unless shown forgiveness, one cannot show kindness unless shown kindness, one cannot show hospitality unless shown hospitality, one cannot show charity unless shown charity.