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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
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?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
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?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)