For the rest of the semester, my prompts will focus on the connections between textual concepts and your experience in the community. As there are so many interesting and relevant ideas and formulations in this reading, I expect that our discussion will be much broader in class, so use this post as an opportunity to articulate your insights and thoughts about the application of Arendt's formulations to your service.
Please be aware that I am pulling quotes and not providing the full context. When using any quotes in relation to your service, or otherwise, you need to look at the context in which the statement is made in the larger reading in order that your interpretation honors the author’s project (at least to the extent that you understand that to be).
Consider how one or more of these statements/ideas are manifested in your service experience Think about the actions of those you work along side with in your organizations--those who run the organizations and/or the other participants, such as those whose interests are recognized/served etc. (For more ideas/questions that you can be asking yourself to aid your reflective process, please refer to the Tips for Text/Service Responses that I have posted under assignments).
Hannah Arendt writes in the chapter "Collective Responsibility": "we are always responsible for the sins of our fathers as we reap the rewards of their misdeeds, either morally or legally, nor can we ascribe their deeds to our own merits."
She continues in the next paragraph, "We can escape this political and strictly collective responsibility only by leaving the community, and since no man can live without belonging to some community, this would simply mean to exchange one community for another and hence one kind of responsibility for another" (150).
At the conclusion of this chapter, she writes that the "vicarious responsibility for things we have not done, this taking upon ourselves the consequences for things we are entirely innocent of, is the price that we pay for the fact that we live our lives not by ourselves but among our fellow men, and the faculty of action, which, after all, is the political faculty par excellence, can be actualized only in one of the many and manifold forms of human community" (157-158).
“I tried to show that our decisions about right and wrong will depend upon our choice of company, of those with whom we wish to spend our lives” (145-146).
And here is an extra interpretive challenge-- from, “Thinking and Moral Considerations”—can you use your service experience to help illuminate what Arendt means?
“Human consciousness suggests that difference and otherness . . . are the very conditions for the existence of man’s ego . . . For this ego, the I-am-I, experiences difference in identity precisely when it is not related to the things that appear but only to itself” (184).
Monday, March 29, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
One kindness
Prompt:Thus, kindness has an internal tension—it brings us pleasure but it also reminds us of all that we fear about ourselves including change. (There is also an interesting discussion about whether kindness requires selflessness—hopefully we will discuss in class as this is important and a theme that will come up in C. Fred Alford’s book on whistleblowers.)Like most people I fear change. Change brings the good and bad out into your life. And when change is happening in someones life they are either happy or miserable. This reflects to the above prompt as also being an example of the internal tension of kindness. To some people it will kill them to be kind. These people are by nature mad or angry. So why is that? How could being considered kind be so hard for people. To me being kind is part of my lifestyle. Going into to medicine career i cant be rude or not kind. Its part of my way i choose to live my life.
"But if Self-love was validated by the Enlightenment, selfishness emphatically was not." (p.25) The Enlightenment brought dramatic changes for the society and the cultural views. It was looked upon as you would be selfless, rather you would seek pleasure without hurting anyone else. After this quote it talks about no man could get the greater pleasure from acts of kindness and charity. When people started being "less" selfish was a touchstone for humanity. As the Enlightenment thinkers proposed this idea of being kind and doing acts of charity for the greater good was a huge turning point for human kind to have sympathy. (also expressed on page 29) Sympathy is defined as having pity or compassion. (p.28). To me i would have never known the word "pity" would be used in the definition of sympathy. To me sympathy is having compassion, or mutual fondness for someone or something.
"For ones mind to yield pity is an effect of affability, gentleness, and softness." (pg 40) This quote was followed by emotions are works for the weaker being. This weaker being in this time period was a women. To be kind was a feminine act. This sexist statement stuck with women until the modern age. For men to be kind back then, it would be an act of being a women. Men were still considered the ruling sex. With women having the maternal love and kindness showed that they knew the feelings and needs of others than just men. This was a ego shot to the men. This introduced new gender distinctions. Where women were reflected to being spontaneous with unreflected modes of kindness
On Kindness
It was interesting reading the first chapter about kindness and how some people seemed to be against kindness or were suspicious of act of kindness. In which the book claims “most people appear to believe that deep down they (and other people) are mad, bad, and dangerous to know… that our motives are utterly self-seeking, and that our sympathies are forms of self-protection” (4). If this is the view people have on kindness and why some people choose to do acts of kindness then it would explain why some people have a negative view on kindness or are suspicious of acts of kindness. The reality is that we do question the true motives of people such as celebrities when they donate to charities, visit children at hospitals, or do any act of kindness. What stood out to be was that “kindly behavior is looked upon with suspicion; public espousals of kindness are dismissed as moralistic and sentimental” (7). I believe this statement is true because I have questioned the kindly behavior of others as have others have questioned mine. There is a sense of suspicion in which we are not doing this because of the kindness at the bottom of our hearts but because we will gain something from it. Kindness is a concept that is being lost because we grow up in a society in which being competitive is important and are rewarded for being the best. In which we are told to try harder next time and we begin shifting into a mind set of only caring about you and forgetting about others. I know realize that many of the things I did before what not acts of kindness although I believed they were but more like showing that I was better than others. Volunteering, helping or getting in involved in projects competing against friends and classmates everything was a competition between us and nothing more. But that feeling does not comparative to the feeling I get from doing some kind act. On Friday I helped to do the mailing for my service learning at Marin Link and although all I did was help in the process of getting the mailing done, it felt good. Not only because I got to help out but because it made me feel happy to be part of the Green Business Forum and being able to mail the letters the same day. I’ve worked on projects and events before but I’ve never had that feeling of peace, relaxation, and happiness like I did on Friday, the other times I just felt like getting it done and moving on. It might be that I have changed since my arrival at Dominican in which I view life differently but the feeling of doing something to help out someone other than yourself is an indescribable which just brightens your day. While another reason people might refrain themselves from doing acts of kindness could be the belief that “women [are] naturally prone to sympathetic incontinence, while men, as the ruling sex, had to retain self-command” (40). For guys it might seem like a sign of weakness to be kind especially when you’re surrounded by people who mock you whenever you do something kind or question your kindness. Kindness does not discriminate among genders or is a characteristic that only belongs to one particular gender. People should move from caring about what others may say or think and maybe then people will be more kind or not think twice before giving in to kindness.
It was interesting reading the first chapter about kindness and how some people seemed to be against kindness or were suspicious of act of kindness. In which the book claims “most people appear to believe that deep down they (and other people) are mad, bad, and dangerous to know… that our motives are utterly self-seeking, and that our sympathies are forms of self-protection” (4). If this is the view people have on kindness and why some people choose to do acts of kindness then it would explain why some people have a negative view on kindness or are suspicious of acts of kindness. The reality is that we do question the true motives of people such as celebrities when they donate to charities, visit children at hospitals, or do any act of kindness. What stood out to be was that “kindly behavior is looked upon with suspicion; public espousals of kindness are dismissed as moralistic and sentimental” (7). I believe this statement is true because I have questioned the kindly behavior of others as have others have questioned mine. There is a sense of suspicion in which we are not doing this because of the kindness at the bottom of our hearts but because we will gain something from it. Kindness is a concept that is being lost because we grow up in a society in which being competitive is important and are rewarded for being the best. In which we are told to try harder next time and we begin shifting into a mind set of only caring about you and forgetting about others. I know realize that many of the things I did before what not acts of kindness although I believed they were but more like showing that I was better than others. Volunteering, helping or getting in involved in projects competing against friends and classmates everything was a competition between us and nothing more. But that feeling does not comparative to the feeling I get from doing some kind act. On Friday I helped to do the mailing for my service learning at Marin Link and although all I did was help in the process of getting the mailing done, it felt good. Not only because I got to help out but because it made me feel happy to be part of the Green Business Forum and being able to mail the letters the same day. I’ve worked on projects and events before but I’ve never had that feeling of peace, relaxation, and happiness like I did on Friday, the other times I just felt like getting it done and moving on. It might be that I have changed since my arrival at Dominican in which I view life differently but the feeling of doing something to help out someone other than yourself is an indescribable which just brightens your day. While another reason people might refrain themselves from doing acts of kindness could be the belief that “women [are] naturally prone to sympathetic incontinence, while men, as the ruling sex, had to retain self-command” (40). For guys it might seem like a sign of weakness to be kind especially when you’re surrounded by people who mock you whenever you do something kind or question your kindness. Kindness does not discriminate among genders or is a characteristic that only belongs to one particular gender. People should move from caring about what others may say or think and maybe then people will be more kind or not think twice before giving in to kindness.
Kindness Post
Kindness and Empathy are things that affect us on an almost hourly basis. We all make choices everyday that have so affect on others whether it be by six degrees of seperation or face to face. I know I see at least two or three people asking for spare change. I usually don't give them anything because I think they are just going to by alcohol or drugs. It is because of a few that I came up with this stereotype of beggers. But, at the same time what else could I do that could benefit the people looking for the help? I was once waiting at a red light in the parking lot of the Santa Rosa Costco and Best Buy, there was a man holding a sign in the median saying he was a war vet and needed any help. I then noticed that the car in front of me waved the guy over, I didn't see the drive of the car hand the man money, but instead it was a book, a Donald Trump how to get rich book to be precise. I actually thought it was a sick joke and so did the vet. As the vet looked like he was about to chuck the book back at the guy the drive told him to open it... inside was a $100 bill! I was shocked, and all of a sudden felt like that could make some change (no pun intended) in his life. I also once worked with a manager at Safeway that would not tell the people out front asking for change to leave but instead brought them in and gave them a soda and what usually chicken strips or jalapano poppers. I know I don't have the resources to give out $100 bills or sodas and fried food, but I could at least hand out a dollar.
I think something that everyone needs to realize is that we are all dependant to some extant. We all know that the majority of us were dependants until out late teens, and then in some wierd circle of life we get to take care of our parents when they get old. But on a larger level we also rely on others. I mean look at school! We couldn't teach ourselves all the things we must know to get our degrees (no matter what we may say while in class). Without professors we would be s.o.l. Then on to another big thing that everyone has and usually needs self-confidence and self-esteem. To me it's just wrong for those to be called "self" when it usually is based off of what we feel and sometimes know other feel about us. Either way we all need the every now and then stroking of our ego. That leads us to the friends and loved ones we rely on to give us this confidence, because without this confidence and esteem, we might quit things we are currently doing or working on. It is because of these reasons that the following qoute sttod out to me: "Self sufficiency is an impossible fantasy." p 30. If we were all self sufficient, things coudl get done every now and than and for a short time before things would go down hill. To me I feel that would also mean not having anyone to boast to or show off earnings, or awards. So all in all I think we all depend on one another, one way or another.
I think something that everyone needs to realize is that we are all dependant to some extant. We all know that the majority of us were dependants until out late teens, and then in some wierd circle of life we get to take care of our parents when they get old. But on a larger level we also rely on others. I mean look at school! We couldn't teach ourselves all the things we must know to get our degrees (no matter what we may say while in class). Without professors we would be s.o.l. Then on to another big thing that everyone has and usually needs self-confidence and self-esteem. To me it's just wrong for those to be called "self" when it usually is based off of what we feel and sometimes know other feel about us. Either way we all need the every now and then stroking of our ego. That leads us to the friends and loved ones we rely on to give us this confidence, because without this confidence and esteem, we might quit things we are currently doing or working on. It is because of these reasons that the following qoute sttod out to me: "Self sufficiency is an impossible fantasy." p 30. If we were all self sufficient, things coudl get done every now and than and for a short time before things would go down hill. To me I feel that would also mean not having anyone to boast to or show off earnings, or awards. So all in all I think we all depend on one another, one way or another.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
On Kindness First Reading
I really enjoy this book. It makes a lot of sense in the realm of humanity. It is interesting to read about the way in which people are amazed at the way they feel after demonstrating random acts of kindness. A quote that I have been thinking about a lot is in the beginning of the book on page four. "Reading these stories, we begin to wonder why people today are so surprised by the blindingly obvious. Why do the pleasures of kindness astonish us? And why are the stories about kindness often so corny or silly, so trivializing of the things that matter most to people?" (Phillips, Taylor pg. 4). When I read this passage, it really struck me and made me think about the types of kindness that are heard of in news stories and by word of mouth. Each time somebody does something kind or unselfish, it becomes a big deal.
People are flabbergasted by the sheer kindness that is done, or they completely take it for granted. From personal experience, I know that a lot of people are simply astonished by random acts of kindness. I work at a drive-thru coffee shop, and occassionally, someone will pay for another person's coffee even if they are previously unacquainted with the other person. The person who's drink was paid for will be very happy, and sometimes pay for someone else's drink. It's a great feeling being a part of making someone's day a little bit happier. Personally, I think that it is random acts of violence and anger that should be more astonishing to people. Kindness should be a part of everybody's lives without question. There should be nothing astonishing about someone paying for a coffee just because they felt like it. It should be nice, but not something unheard of in the realm of every day reality. If people focused more on performing acts of kindness instead of consuming themselves with their own lives completely, this world would be a much nicer place in which to live.
People are flabbergasted by the sheer kindness that is done, or they completely take it for granted. From personal experience, I know that a lot of people are simply astonished by random acts of kindness. I work at a drive-thru coffee shop, and occassionally, someone will pay for another person's coffee even if they are previously unacquainted with the other person. The person who's drink was paid for will be very happy, and sometimes pay for someone else's drink. It's a great feeling being a part of making someone's day a little bit happier. Personally, I think that it is random acts of violence and anger that should be more astonishing to people. Kindness should be a part of everybody's lives without question. There should be nothing astonishing about someone paying for a coffee just because they felt like it. It should be nice, but not something unheard of in the realm of every day reality. If people focused more on performing acts of kindness instead of consuming themselves with their own lives completely, this world would be a much nicer place in which to live.
On Kindness
For me, this reading was personally relevant and often directly expressed feelings that arise in my own mind on a daily basis. The reading catalyzed introspection that was at times scary and at other times hopeful and inspiring. I was also struck by the passage early in the reading that Professor Van Der Ryn opened with in the prompt. The authors, Phillips and Taylor, assert:
Most people appear to believe that deep down they (and other people) are mad, bad , and dangerous to know; that as species-apparently unlike other species of animal – we are deeply and fundamentally antagonistic to each other, that our motives are utterly self-seeking, and that our sympathies are forms of self-protection. (p. 4)
What struck me about this thought is that when put into words, it sounds so sad and hopeless, but at the same time it is often how I feel about myself, and others.
For me it is important to look at this topic (kindness and interactions between human beings) not as an idea of absolutes, but rather as a result of many interacting factors. By this I mean that I do not believe that people are always kind or always malevolent, but rather, I believe that peoples’ treatment of others is s complex interaction of genetics, upbringing, mood and surrounding. The author suggests that kindness is what makes people most happy and content. “His astonishment is echoed in headline reports of studies of “what makes people happy,” which show kindness registering much higher on the happiness scale than self-focused behavior” (p. 3). This is a point that I totally agree with, but at the same time, in light of my own experience, calls for further exploration.
As I thought about this reading, I began to recognize my own patterns of kindness and more commonly, lack of kindness and benevolence (my most common description of myself is that I am a “misanthropic f***”). What I realized is that I am much more likely to act kind and feel a connection to humanity when I am happy and feeling positive about my own existence. When I am feeling badly about myself or the state of the world, I tend to project negative traits onto others and thus am much less interested or motivated to act kindly. In fact, when I am stressed, I often act antagonistically towards others and seek out confrontation. I guess my question is what comes first, the kindness or the happiness? I would suggest both. Not only does kindness result in increased happiness, but happiness results in increased kindness.
Another component that is critical to kindness is the belief of interconnectedness of all humans. My educational background is mainly in psychology and biological sciences and in both these disciplines, the idea of altruism is largely discounted and at best met with a great deal of skepticism. One reductionist view is that we are nothing more than vehicles for propagating our genetic material from one generation to the next. However, I don’t believe this is our innate drive, but rather a biological vulnerablility that has been exploited by businesses, media and Government. In light of these two critical components of kindness (happiness and interconnectedness) it logically follows that kindness has dissipated in our country. We are living in an age of ruthless corporate capitalism in our country, which not only creates economic divisions, but also is inherently competitive. So in a sense the connectedness we should feel to one another is being replaced by something that is deemed more important, power and status. The result is that we see fellow human beings as competition for a diminishing and already limited pool space and resources. In addition, happiness has become intimately tied to possessions and things. Marketing schemes and businesses now supply an endless stream of new releases, new versions and upgrades. By placing your happiness in things, it remains always in sight, but just out of reach. As we become more advanced as a nation, we have simultaneously become less and less happy and content. This is an idea suggested by the authors, in which they state, “…but entry into society with its vicious inequalities and rivalries, transforms this innate self-concern into amour proper, a “hateful and irascible” egoism based on the envious comparison of self to others” (p. 31).
I do not believe that we are innately malevolent, hateful beasts as the authors pose early in the reading. However we are clearly not saints who are impervious to the influences of this world. We are complex interactions of our genetics and our environment and we are incredibly social beings, as we have seen in other readings. Ironically, I believe it is this drive to be accepted and surrounded by others that has driven us away from kindness. We have come to believe, over years and years of brainwashing (I’m hesitant to use this word, but at the same time, I believe it is a form of brainwashing) that resources and power are the most important “traits” of a person. It seems that money and power has replaced moral integrity and personality as the basis on which we judge people. Being successful (in a fiscal sense), important and powerful has become the surefire way to be assured that you can have some control in your social surrounding. It is the setup of our society that makes us believe that kindness will be counterproductive toward reaching these goals. As Rousseau stated, “society corrupts.”
Most people appear to believe that deep down they (and other people) are mad, bad , and dangerous to know; that as species-apparently unlike other species of animal – we are deeply and fundamentally antagonistic to each other, that our motives are utterly self-seeking, and that our sympathies are forms of self-protection. (p. 4)
What struck me about this thought is that when put into words, it sounds so sad and hopeless, but at the same time it is often how I feel about myself, and others.
For me it is important to look at this topic (kindness and interactions between human beings) not as an idea of absolutes, but rather as a result of many interacting factors. By this I mean that I do not believe that people are always kind or always malevolent, but rather, I believe that peoples’ treatment of others is s complex interaction of genetics, upbringing, mood and surrounding. The author suggests that kindness is what makes people most happy and content. “His astonishment is echoed in headline reports of studies of “what makes people happy,” which show kindness registering much higher on the happiness scale than self-focused behavior” (p. 3). This is a point that I totally agree with, but at the same time, in light of my own experience, calls for further exploration.
As I thought about this reading, I began to recognize my own patterns of kindness and more commonly, lack of kindness and benevolence (my most common description of myself is that I am a “misanthropic f***”). What I realized is that I am much more likely to act kind and feel a connection to humanity when I am happy and feeling positive about my own existence. When I am feeling badly about myself or the state of the world, I tend to project negative traits onto others and thus am much less interested or motivated to act kindly. In fact, when I am stressed, I often act antagonistically towards others and seek out confrontation. I guess my question is what comes first, the kindness or the happiness? I would suggest both. Not only does kindness result in increased happiness, but happiness results in increased kindness.
Another component that is critical to kindness is the belief of interconnectedness of all humans. My educational background is mainly in psychology and biological sciences and in both these disciplines, the idea of altruism is largely discounted and at best met with a great deal of skepticism. One reductionist view is that we are nothing more than vehicles for propagating our genetic material from one generation to the next. However, I don’t believe this is our innate drive, but rather a biological vulnerablility that has been exploited by businesses, media and Government. In light of these two critical components of kindness (happiness and interconnectedness) it logically follows that kindness has dissipated in our country. We are living in an age of ruthless corporate capitalism in our country, which not only creates economic divisions, but also is inherently competitive. So in a sense the connectedness we should feel to one another is being replaced by something that is deemed more important, power and status. The result is that we see fellow human beings as competition for a diminishing and already limited pool space and resources. In addition, happiness has become intimately tied to possessions and things. Marketing schemes and businesses now supply an endless stream of new releases, new versions and upgrades. By placing your happiness in things, it remains always in sight, but just out of reach. As we become more advanced as a nation, we have simultaneously become less and less happy and content. This is an idea suggested by the authors, in which they state, “…but entry into society with its vicious inequalities and rivalries, transforms this innate self-concern into amour proper, a “hateful and irascible” egoism based on the envious comparison of self to others” (p. 31).
I do not believe that we are innately malevolent, hateful beasts as the authors pose early in the reading. However we are clearly not saints who are impervious to the influences of this world. We are complex interactions of our genetics and our environment and we are incredibly social beings, as we have seen in other readings. Ironically, I believe it is this drive to be accepted and surrounded by others that has driven us away from kindness. We have come to believe, over years and years of brainwashing (I’m hesitant to use this word, but at the same time, I believe it is a form of brainwashing) that resources and power are the most important “traits” of a person. It seems that money and power has replaced moral integrity and personality as the basis on which we judge people. Being successful (in a fiscal sense), important and powerful has become the surefire way to be assured that you can have some control in your social surrounding. It is the setup of our society that makes us believe that kindness will be counterproductive toward reaching these goals. As Rousseau stated, “society corrupts.”
Saturday, March 20, 2010
ON KINDNESS FOR BLOG 3-22-2010
It is absolutely possible for one to be kind and selfless at the same time. Taylor and Phillips have a good argument but are not looking at this subject head on, but using history and psychology to skirt the issue of kindness.
Why should someone feel ambivalent about “our instinct for kindness?’ The authors present the idea of ambivalence starting with the teachings of Christ being misrepresented by those that followed. I find that this could have been the downfall of kindness as a selfless flaw in human behavior. True, the idea of kindness can be “hazardous” when based on the susceptibility of others and believing “pleasures and kindness are inherently perilous.” What then of the people who went to New Orleans to help dig out people and find ways of ferrying them to safety? What then of those that went to Haiti to help rescue those still under the rubble? Perhaps some did go for personal gain, but I believe that out of kindness for those in dire trouble the American people took to the challenge out of concern.
Taylor and Phillips state that we deny ourselves the pleasure of being kind because we are suspicious. Going back to previous years, it was men, not women, who had the ideas that kindness was either only from God and not man, or, someone wanted something in exchange. This is all learned behavior. When raised with kindness and the belief that we should be kind without being reciprocated in some way, the example we are taught becomes part of our human make up and follows us through life. This is not to say that the book by Taylor and Phillips is wrong, it is just their interpretation of what kindness is.
Why should someone feel ambivalent about “our instinct for kindness?’ The authors present the idea of ambivalence starting with the teachings of Christ being misrepresented by those that followed. I find that this could have been the downfall of kindness as a selfless flaw in human behavior. True, the idea of kindness can be “hazardous” when based on the susceptibility of others and believing “pleasures and kindness are inherently perilous.” What then of the people who went to New Orleans to help dig out people and find ways of ferrying them to safety? What then of those that went to Haiti to help rescue those still under the rubble? Perhaps some did go for personal gain, but I believe that out of kindness for those in dire trouble the American people took to the challenge out of concern.
Taylor and Phillips state that we deny ourselves the pleasure of being kind because we are suspicious. Going back to previous years, it was men, not women, who had the ideas that kindness was either only from God and not man, or, someone wanted something in exchange. This is all learned behavior. When raised with kindness and the belief that we should be kind without being reciprocated in some way, the example we are taught becomes part of our human make up and follows us through life. This is not to say that the book by Taylor and Phillips is wrong, it is just their interpretation of what kindness is.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Does selflessness exist?
Can we be kind and selfless at the same time? No, I don’t think it is possible. If people didn’t depend on me being there and if it didn’t affect my grade, I would not show up. I have a lot of studying to do and sleep to catch up on that I am missing out on by being there. Even though that (in a way) I am being forced to be at County against what I really want/need to do, I get an incredible about out of it. I could skip a day to sleep in without any consequences, but if I do I am setting a bad example for the kids. I get an amazing feeling by setting an example for the kids there. They seem to think I am “cool” and they also know I show up everyday and on time, hopefully that influences them.
Today at County, I was helping a student read through a chapter on the British Tea Party and helping him answer questions about it. In the beginning all I could think about was the test I had to take in an hour and how I could be studying for it. After the student started to read through the book and I could hear him trying really hard, I was all about focusing on him. I was able to use my basic knowledge of reading to help him understand the chapter he was reading out loud to me. I joked around with him and helped him answer the post-reading questions and I couldn’t help but feel good. I was being kind against my own will (in a way) but I got SO much out of it.
I believe that people are naturally kind. No matter what “society” does to us, we still want to be nice and help people. If humans were not naturally kind, we all would have killed each other by now. “Kindness is always hazardous because it is bases on a susceptibility to others,”p.5 if kindness is hazardous, why do we keep doing it? There is something deep within us that asks us to be kind, and most of us follow it religiously. When we checkout at the grocery store, we wait in line (this is kind), when we leave the grocery store we say “thank you: (this is kind), when we pull out of the parking lot, we look around for pedestrians and other cars, (this is also kind). If one really thinks about it, most things we do have kindness dwelling at the root of it.
The author asserts that, “Self sufficiency is an impossible fantasy.” p30. I believe that this is true. No one is self sufficient as a child especially since food and shelter are provided by a parent. After childhood one depends on either teachers in college or on bosses in the working world. No matter if it is a personal or business relationship that you have with a person, you are somewhat dependent on someone. If a person lived in the woods and lived off of the land completely separated from society, they would be dependent on nature to provide food for them and most importantly oxygen. This is far fetched and taken way too far, but think about it, could you truly live a solitary life?
Today at County, I was helping a student read through a chapter on the British Tea Party and helping him answer questions about it. In the beginning all I could think about was the test I had to take in an hour and how I could be studying for it. After the student started to read through the book and I could hear him trying really hard, I was all about focusing on him. I was able to use my basic knowledge of reading to help him understand the chapter he was reading out loud to me. I joked around with him and helped him answer the post-reading questions and I couldn’t help but feel good. I was being kind against my own will (in a way) but I got SO much out of it.
I believe that people are naturally kind. No matter what “society” does to us, we still want to be nice and help people. If humans were not naturally kind, we all would have killed each other by now. “Kindness is always hazardous because it is bases on a susceptibility to others,”p.5 if kindness is hazardous, why do we keep doing it? There is something deep within us that asks us to be kind, and most of us follow it religiously. When we checkout at the grocery store, we wait in line (this is kind), when we leave the grocery store we say “thank you: (this is kind), when we pull out of the parking lot, we look around for pedestrians and other cars, (this is also kind). If one really thinks about it, most things we do have kindness dwelling at the root of it.
The author asserts that, “Self sufficiency is an impossible fantasy.” p30. I believe that this is true. No one is self sufficient as a child especially since food and shelter are provided by a parent. After childhood one depends on either teachers in college or on bosses in the working world. No matter if it is a personal or business relationship that you have with a person, you are somewhat dependent on someone. If a person lived in the woods and lived off of the land completely separated from society, they would be dependent on nature to provide food for them and most importantly oxygen. This is far fetched and taken way too far, but think about it, could you truly live a solitary life?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
For 3/22--Prompt for On Kindness
In a sense, this is more than a prompt, it is also a bit of a reading guide to help you, hopefully, get to the crux of the ideas presented here--try not to react to the premise of these ideas but to reflect on the philosophical implications.
1. Against Kindness
The authors' thesis (you may not agree but try to see this on a societal level, not from your individual perspective) is that, “[m]ost people appear to believe that deep down they (and other people) are mad, bad, and dangerous to know. . . our motives are utterly self-seeking, and that our sympathies are forms of self-protection” (4).
The authors suggest that although many of us live the kind life in “instinctive sympathetic identification with the vulnerabilities and attractions of others. . . but without a language in which to express this, or cultural support for it” (4)
(Again, remember, at times we have to over-generalize in order to be able to examine collective issues, and if we look at the state of our own country in the moment, there may be some evidence that supports these claims.)
One of the reasons, that the authors suggest, for our ambivalence about our instinct for kindness, has to do with our own vulnerability, not wanting to experience our own weaknesses: “Bearing other people’s vulnerability—which means sharing in it imaginatively and practically . . .––entails being able to bear one’s own” (11). In a sense, what we have in common is our vulnerability (an idea that Judith Butler will elaborate on in Precarious Life).
Thus, kindness has an internal tension—it brings us pleasure but it also reminds us of all that we fear about ourselves including change. (There is also an interesting discussion about whether kindness requires selflessness—hopefully we will discuss in class as this is important and a theme that will come up in C. Fred Alford’s book on whistleblowers.)
Think about these ideas in relationship to your service. Can you illustrate through an experience that you have had already or in relation to your own process of starting this commitment? Use other parts of the reading to make more connections and elaborate. Such as:
2. A Short History of Kindness
(To continue the discussion of selflessness vs selfishness) Two Enlightenment views of kindness: “For most of pre-modern history . . . kindness was seen as a solution to a problem: the problem of other people”(27). Kindness was seen as a bridge between separate entities in which the motive was more about surviving as an individual. The alternative view did not see people as separate entities but as interconnected (28). The authors illustrate this view with Adam Smith’s philosophy of “fellow feeling” and “imaginative projection of self into other” (29).
Continue to probe and unpack these ideas and use other parts of the history to explore and connect these ideas. If we are interdependent, is it selfish to be kind? And if we are interdependent, is it possible to be selfless? Maybe you can connect to your ideas above about your service experience.
1. Against Kindness
The authors' thesis (you may not agree but try to see this on a societal level, not from your individual perspective) is that, “[m]ost people appear to believe that deep down they (and other people) are mad, bad, and dangerous to know. . . our motives are utterly self-seeking, and that our sympathies are forms of self-protection” (4).
The authors suggest that although many of us live the kind life in “instinctive sympathetic identification with the vulnerabilities and attractions of others. . . but without a language in which to express this, or cultural support for it” (4)
(Again, remember, at times we have to over-generalize in order to be able to examine collective issues, and if we look at the state of our own country in the moment, there may be some evidence that supports these claims.)
One of the reasons, that the authors suggest, for our ambivalence about our instinct for kindness, has to do with our own vulnerability, not wanting to experience our own weaknesses: “Bearing other people’s vulnerability—which means sharing in it imaginatively and practically . . .––entails being able to bear one’s own” (11). In a sense, what we have in common is our vulnerability (an idea that Judith Butler will elaborate on in Precarious Life).
Thus, kindness has an internal tension—it brings us pleasure but it also reminds us of all that we fear about ourselves including change. (There is also an interesting discussion about whether kindness requires selflessness—hopefully we will discuss in class as this is important and a theme that will come up in C. Fred Alford’s book on whistleblowers.)
Think about these ideas in relationship to your service. Can you illustrate through an experience that you have had already or in relation to your own process of starting this commitment? Use other parts of the reading to make more connections and elaborate. Such as:
2. A Short History of Kindness
(To continue the discussion of selflessness vs selfishness) Two Enlightenment views of kindness: “For most of pre-modern history . . . kindness was seen as a solution to a problem: the problem of other people”(27). Kindness was seen as a bridge between separate entities in which the motive was more about surviving as an individual. The alternative view did not see people as separate entities but as interconnected (28). The authors illustrate this view with Adam Smith’s philosophy of “fellow feeling” and “imaginative projection of self into other” (29).
Continue to probe and unpack these ideas and use other parts of the history to explore and connect these ideas. If we are interdependent, is it selfish to be kind? And if we are interdependent, is it possible to be selfless? Maybe you can connect to your ideas above about your service experience.
The Divided Self
I was particularly captivated by the ideas contained in The Happiness Hypothesis. The image of the man trying helplessly to control a wild elephant really resonated with me as I often feel my brain is working against itself or toward diametrically opposed goals. Even as I read, I noticed how often my mind would wander, often to memories or thoughts that were anxiety provoking or unpleasant. Despite my frustration and intention to prevent this, it continued to happen. While I have spent the majority of my life painfully at odds with my own mind, over the years I have learned that you cannot force your own biology to change and it is better to try and find inner harmony than to fight what you can’t willfully control. I have come to realize that we cannot completely reign-in and control our mind, but at best we can learn to monitor our mind more efficiently and in doing so, learn to keep it focused on what is productive for us, rather than the random ramblings or often destructive thoughts the mind often conjures up. According to Haidt (2006),
The automatic system was shaped by natural selection to trigger quick and reliable action, and it includes parts of the brain that make us feel pleasure and pain (such as the orbitofrontal cortex) and that trigger survival-related motivations (such as the hypothalamus). The automatic system has its finger on the dopamine release button. The controlled system, in contrast, is better seen as an advisor. It’s rider place on the elephant’s back to help the elephant make better choices. (p.17)
Reading this chapter really helped me feel as though the internal conflicts I often feel are justified and valid, but more importantly, this sense of acceptance was also accompanied by a feeling of motivation and hope. I like the author’s view of “emotional intelligence” given on page 18:
These thinking skills are an aspect of emotional intelligence – an ability to understand and regulate one’s own feelings and desires. An emotionally intelligent person has a skilled rider who knows how to distract and coax the elephant without having to engage in a direct contest of wills.
This section of the chapter left me with a new understanding and general feeling about the distinct divisions and drives that make me as a person. The way the author articulated the aforementioned points, I realized that managing yourself should not be a battle in which you inflict pain or harm unto yourself, but rather a game in which you intelligently learn to manage your biology and environment in a way that best suites you.
While I did not find the Living By a Love Ethic or On the Way to Good and Evil to be as personally relevant, I found that the combination of the three readings led to some interesting questions and insights. An interesting point brought up by Needleman seems to insinuate the largely counterproductive effects our intentions, religious and philosophical doctrines have had.
All we can say is that our religious ideals, our moral resolves, our ideologies, our campaign, however honorably conceived, have not prevented-and perhaps have even hastened-the arrival of our world and our lives at the rim of despair and destruction. (p. 99).
What the author is saying is that despite our best intentions (and it is probably the benefit of the doubt to call them “best intentions”), perhaps we are actually creating a worse existence. I mean think about it, if we were created by God, as most of the religions I know preach to one extent or another, then why must we spend so much time and energy and so many resources in “improving” our existence. The more I am disappointed by the attainment of material goodies and the less time I have for myself because of my drive for the “American Dream”, the more I begin to think that we inherited paradise (from God?) and took a big dump all over it, in the shape of freeways, skyscrapers, Wall Street, Big Business, Capitalism, The information superhighway, Politics etc. We have effectively replaced, happiness, sustainability and contentedness with the fantasy of one day attaining these states. It’s the progress paradox. The more “developed” and technologically advanced we become, the more miserable, anxious and hopeless we’ve simultaneously become.
We have transitioned from a people of feelings and experiences to a people of things and possessions. As implored by Williamson, “Yet we do not question why we live in states of extreme anxiety and dread. Fear is the primary force upholding structures of domination” (p. 93). Michael Moore recently said that he felt Capitalism was inherently wrong and I am beginning to agree. At what point do we stop seeing the growth of the prefrontal cortex, the establishment of the ego or any other term pinned to our “evolution” as inherently good and start seeing it as a adaptive coping mechanism as a result of a external world we’ve created, but in which we are not meant to live in? At what point does too big of a brain, too robust of an ego, too much technology and too many “things” become dangerous to our existence, if it hasn’t already?
The automatic system was shaped by natural selection to trigger quick and reliable action, and it includes parts of the brain that make us feel pleasure and pain (such as the orbitofrontal cortex) and that trigger survival-related motivations (such as the hypothalamus). The automatic system has its finger on the dopamine release button. The controlled system, in contrast, is better seen as an advisor. It’s rider place on the elephant’s back to help the elephant make better choices. (p.17)
Reading this chapter really helped me feel as though the internal conflicts I often feel are justified and valid, but more importantly, this sense of acceptance was also accompanied by a feeling of motivation and hope. I like the author’s view of “emotional intelligence” given on page 18:
These thinking skills are an aspect of emotional intelligence – an ability to understand and regulate one’s own feelings and desires. An emotionally intelligent person has a skilled rider who knows how to distract and coax the elephant without having to engage in a direct contest of wills.
This section of the chapter left me with a new understanding and general feeling about the distinct divisions and drives that make me as a person. The way the author articulated the aforementioned points, I realized that managing yourself should not be a battle in which you inflict pain or harm unto yourself, but rather a game in which you intelligently learn to manage your biology and environment in a way that best suites you.
While I did not find the Living By a Love Ethic or On the Way to Good and Evil to be as personally relevant, I found that the combination of the three readings led to some interesting questions and insights. An interesting point brought up by Needleman seems to insinuate the largely counterproductive effects our intentions, religious and philosophical doctrines have had.
All we can say is that our religious ideals, our moral resolves, our ideologies, our campaign, however honorably conceived, have not prevented-and perhaps have even hastened-the arrival of our world and our lives at the rim of despair and destruction. (p. 99).
What the author is saying is that despite our best intentions (and it is probably the benefit of the doubt to call them “best intentions”), perhaps we are actually creating a worse existence. I mean think about it, if we were created by God, as most of the religions I know preach to one extent or another, then why must we spend so much time and energy and so many resources in “improving” our existence. The more I am disappointed by the attainment of material goodies and the less time I have for myself because of my drive for the “American Dream”, the more I begin to think that we inherited paradise (from God?) and took a big dump all over it, in the shape of freeways, skyscrapers, Wall Street, Big Business, Capitalism, The information superhighway, Politics etc. We have effectively replaced, happiness, sustainability and contentedness with the fantasy of one day attaining these states. It’s the progress paradox. The more “developed” and technologically advanced we become, the more miserable, anxious and hopeless we’ve simultaneously become.
We have transitioned from a people of feelings and experiences to a people of things and possessions. As implored by Williamson, “Yet we do not question why we live in states of extreme anxiety and dread. Fear is the primary force upholding structures of domination” (p. 93). Michael Moore recently said that he felt Capitalism was inherently wrong and I am beginning to agree. At what point do we stop seeing the growth of the prefrontal cortex, the establishment of the ego or any other term pinned to our “evolution” as inherently good and start seeing it as a adaptive coping mechanism as a result of a external world we’ve created, but in which we are not meant to live in? At what point does too big of a brain, too robust of an ego, too much technology and too many “things” become dangerous to our existence, if it hasn’t already?
The Divided Self
I was particularly captivated by the ideas contained in The Happiness Hypothesis. The image of the man trying helplessly to control a wild elephant really resonated with me as I often feel my brain is working against itself or toward diametrically opposed goals. Even as I read, I noticed how often my mind would wander, often to memories or thoughts that were anxiety provoking or unpleasant. Despite my frustration and intention to prevent this, it continued to happen. While I have spent the majority of my life painfully at odds with my own mind, over the years I have learned that you cannot force your own biology to change and it is better to try and find inner harmony than to fight what you can’t willfully control. I have come to realize that we cannot completely reign-in and control our mind, but at best we can learn to monitor our mind more efficiently and in doing so, learn to keep it focused on what is productive for us, rather than the random ramblings or often destructive thoughts the mind often conjures up. According to Haidt (2006),
The automatic system was shaped by natural selection to trigger quick and reliable action, and it includes parts of the brain that make us feel pleasure and pain (such as the orbitofrontal cortex) and that trigger survival-related motivations (such as the hypothalamus). The automatic system has its finger on the dopamine release button. The controlled system, in contrast, is better seen as an advisor. It’s rider place on the elephant’s back to help the elephant make better choices. (p.17)
Reading this chapter really helped me feel as though the internal conflicts I often feel are justified and valid, but more importantly, this sense of acceptance was also accompanied by a feeling of motivation and hope. I like the author’s view of “emotional intelligence” given on page 18:
These thinking skills are an aspect of emotional intelligence – an ability to understand and regulate one’s own feelings and desires. An emotionally intelligent person has a skilled rider who knows how to distract and coax the elephant without having to engage in a direct contest of wills.
This section of the chapter left me with a new understanding and general feeling about the distinct divisions and drives that make me as a person. The way the author articulated the aforementioned points, I realized that managing yourself should not be a battle in which you inflict pain or harm unto yourself, but rather a game in which you intelligently learn to manage your biology and environment in a way that best suites you.
While I did not find the Living By a Love Ethic or On the Way to Good and Evil to be as personally relevant, I found that the combination of the three readings led to some interesting questions and insights. An interesting point brought up by Needleman seems to insinuate the largely counterproductive effects our intentions, religious and philosophical doctrines have had.
All we can say is that our religious ideals, our moral resolves, our ideologies, our campaign, however honorably conceived, have not prevented-and perhaps have even hastened-the arrival of our world and our lives at the rim of despair and destruction. (p. 99).
What the author is saying is that despite our best intentions (and it is probably the benefit of the doubt to call them “best intentions”), perhaps we are actually creating a worse existence. I mean think about it, if we were created by God, as most of the religions I know preach to one extent or another, then why must we spend so much time and energy and so many resources in “improving” our existence. The more I am disappointed by the attainment of material goodies and the less time I have for myself because of my drive for the “American Dream”, the more I begin to think that we inherited paradise (from God?) and took a big dump all over it, in the shape of freeways, skyscrapers, Wall Street, Big Business, Capitalism, The information superhighway, Politics etc. We have effectively replaced, happiness, sustainability and contentedness with the fantasy of one day attaining these states. It’s the progress paradox. The more “developed” and technologically advanced we become, the more miserable, anxious and hopeless we’ve simultaneously become.
We have transitioned from a people of feelings and experiences to a people of things and possessions. As implored by Williamson, “Yet we do not question why we live in states of extreme anxiety and dread. Fear is the primary force upholding structures of domination” (p. 93). Michael Moore recently said that he felt Capitalism was inherently wrong and I am beginning to agree. At what point do we stop seeing the growth of the prefrontal cortex, the establishment of the ego or any other term pinned to our “evolution” as inherently good and start seeing it as a adaptive coping mechanism as a result of a external world we’ve created, but in which we are not meant to live in? At what point does too big of a brain, too robust of an ego, too much technology and too many “things” become dangerous to our existence, if it hasn’t already?
The automatic system was shaped by natural selection to trigger quick and reliable action, and it includes parts of the brain that make us feel pleasure and pain (such as the orbitofrontal cortex) and that trigger survival-related motivations (such as the hypothalamus). The automatic system has its finger on the dopamine release button. The controlled system, in contrast, is better seen as an advisor. It’s rider place on the elephant’s back to help the elephant make better choices. (p.17)
Reading this chapter really helped me feel as though the internal conflicts I often feel are justified and valid, but more importantly, this sense of acceptance was also accompanied by a feeling of motivation and hope. I like the author’s view of “emotional intelligence” given on page 18:
These thinking skills are an aspect of emotional intelligence – an ability to understand and regulate one’s own feelings and desires. An emotionally intelligent person has a skilled rider who knows how to distract and coax the elephant without having to engage in a direct contest of wills.
This section of the chapter left me with a new understanding and general feeling about the distinct divisions and drives that make me as a person. The way the author articulated the aforementioned points, I realized that managing yourself should not be a battle in which you inflict pain or harm unto yourself, but rather a game in which you intelligently learn to manage your biology and environment in a way that best suites you.
While I did not find the Living By a Love Ethic or On the Way to Good and Evil to be as personally relevant, I found that the combination of the three readings led to some interesting questions and insights. An interesting point brought up by Needleman seems to insinuate the largely counterproductive effects our intentions, religious and philosophical doctrines have had.
All we can say is that our religious ideals, our moral resolves, our ideologies, our campaign, however honorably conceived, have not prevented-and perhaps have even hastened-the arrival of our world and our lives at the rim of despair and destruction. (p. 99).
What the author is saying is that despite our best intentions (and it is probably the benefit of the doubt to call them “best intentions”), perhaps we are actually creating a worse existence. I mean think about it, if we were created by God, as most of the religions I know preach to one extent or another, then why must we spend so much time and energy and so many resources in “improving” our existence. The more I am disappointed by the attainment of material goodies and the less time I have for myself because of my drive for the “American Dream”, the more I begin to think that we inherited paradise (from God?) and took a big dump all over it, in the shape of freeways, skyscrapers, Wall Street, Big Business, Capitalism, The information superhighway, Politics etc. We have effectively replaced, happiness, sustainability and contentedness with the fantasy of one day attaining these states. It’s the progress paradox. The more “developed” and technologically advanced we become, the more miserable, anxious and hopeless we’ve simultaneously become.
We have transitioned from a people of feelings and experiences to a people of things and possessions. As implored by Williamson, “Yet we do not question why we live in states of extreme anxiety and dread. Fear is the primary force upholding structures of domination” (p. 93). Michael Moore recently said that he felt Capitalism was inherently wrong and I am beginning to agree. At what point do we stop seeing the growth of the prefrontal cortex, the establishment of the ego or any other term pinned to our “evolution” as inherently good and start seeing it as a adaptive coping mechanism as a result of a external world we’ve created, but in which we are not meant to live in? At what point does too big of a brain, too robust of an ego, too much technology and too many “things” become dangerous to our existence, if it hasn’t already?
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Divided Self, Living by a Love Ethic, Why Cant we Be Good
The Divided Self I loved the beginning. The fear of the horse and rider. It tests the relationship the rider has with the horse. Clearly here he states, "The horse knew exactly what she was doing. She had walked this path a hundred times...."page 2. I have horses and this relates because a horse may spook as in the story and we always challenge why they did. I also say stop acting up. What I need to realize is trust the horse there must be a reason. As in trust in any other relationship. Which most people have a hard time doing with some one else. The paragraph describing how the mind used the freud metaphor was amazing. I have never thought of it into that text before. I was deeply drawn into the 3 parts:ego, superego, and ID.
Weakness of the will. Weakness of being able to trust (in the horse, or relationships). Weakness to admit that we are in the wrong. Weakness to have selfish desires. Weakness to have the mind vs. body ideaology. This all weaknesses that most humans and people have. I will say i have all of the above. Ethically no one wants to be wrong. That would allow in doubt and regret. Which are closely related to sadness.
Are we all automatic? We wake up go and do our daily rituals. "Controlled processing is limited-we can think about one thing at a time only-but automatic processes run in parallel and can handle many tasks at once."page 14 I always say when i get stressed I have so much on my mind! well know after reading this section I am doing automatic processes. I am focusing on many things instead of being controlled and focusing on one thing at a time. This truely grabbed me because I commit to a lot. I work 2 jobs, have 3 horses, 2 dogs, school, and watching my nephew. That is a lot and i now understand why i am doing automatic. Its almost as if I am on autopilot and not really living life. Hmmm........
Values: Living by a Love Ethic was directly relating to my life in many ways. I have had the same boyfriend for 4 years. Only to find out recently about lies that he has been telling me. Since I love him i have let my gaurd down, my domination and obsession with power have been gone, until now. I have realized what it takes to take stand, and dont let love run you down. Just because you call it love doesnt mean your voice is gone, which i have been feeling. "Love is the only sane and satisfactory response to the problem of human existence." page 92. When someone is in love they are typical happy, glitzy, showing the effects of love. From day one of our lives we ask and need love. We first experience it from our parents then in the future go out to find that particular loveable partner. Towards the end about power, the media, life enhancing values. We let all those influences effect our love. Not just our love but also ability of loving someone or something.
Why Can't We Be Good was harder for me to relate to. The quote, "the goodness above the goodness within,or, as it sometimes expressed, man is a microcosm." A microcosm being defined as a small minature model of something. We humans are a microcosm. We try to be good but we all cant be good. Why is that? Different upbringings? Different perspectives of life? What would life really be like with no bad? The real question is what is good, what is bad, what is ethical? I have my opinions and some people may agree and others may disagree. That is ethically okay. We can all have our good and bad opinions on every aspect of life. We all can't be good because then life wouldnt have difference. We learn from making "bad" choices. We expand from that to make this world a "better" or good place. We all cant be good because then there would be no need for justice. Or would justice even exist if there was no bad?
Weakness of the will. Weakness of being able to trust (in the horse, or relationships). Weakness to admit that we are in the wrong. Weakness to have selfish desires. Weakness to have the mind vs. body ideaology. This all weaknesses that most humans and people have. I will say i have all of the above. Ethically no one wants to be wrong. That would allow in doubt and regret. Which are closely related to sadness.
Are we all automatic? We wake up go and do our daily rituals. "Controlled processing is limited-we can think about one thing at a time only-but automatic processes run in parallel and can handle many tasks at once."page 14 I always say when i get stressed I have so much on my mind! well know after reading this section I am doing automatic processes. I am focusing on many things instead of being controlled and focusing on one thing at a time. This truely grabbed me because I commit to a lot. I work 2 jobs, have 3 horses, 2 dogs, school, and watching my nephew. That is a lot and i now understand why i am doing automatic. Its almost as if I am on autopilot and not really living life. Hmmm........
Values: Living by a Love Ethic was directly relating to my life in many ways. I have had the same boyfriend for 4 years. Only to find out recently about lies that he has been telling me. Since I love him i have let my gaurd down, my domination and obsession with power have been gone, until now. I have realized what it takes to take stand, and dont let love run you down. Just because you call it love doesnt mean your voice is gone, which i have been feeling. "Love is the only sane and satisfactory response to the problem of human existence." page 92. When someone is in love they are typical happy, glitzy, showing the effects of love. From day one of our lives we ask and need love. We first experience it from our parents then in the future go out to find that particular loveable partner. Towards the end about power, the media, life enhancing values. We let all those influences effect our love. Not just our love but also ability of loving someone or something.
Why Can't We Be Good was harder for me to relate to. The quote, "the goodness above the goodness within,or, as it sometimes expressed, man is a microcosm." A microcosm being defined as a small minature model of something. We humans are a microcosm. We try to be good but we all cant be good. Why is that? Different upbringings? Different perspectives of life? What would life really be like with no bad? The real question is what is good, what is bad, what is ethical? I have my opinions and some people may agree and others may disagree. That is ethically okay. We can all have our good and bad opinions on every aspect of life. We all can't be good because then life wouldnt have difference. We learn from making "bad" choices. We expand from that to make this world a "better" or good place. We all cant be good because then there would be no need for justice. Or would justice even exist if there was no bad?
The Happiness Hypothesis
The reading of The Happiness Hypothesis was interesting but what stood out to me was the reading of Failures Of Self Control. In which after his experiment conducted in 1970 with four year old children, Walter Mischel concluded “that the successful children were those who looked away from the temptation or were able to think about other enjoyable activities. These thinking skills are an aspect of emotional intelligence—and ability to understand and regulate one’s own feelings and desires” (18). I can relate to this because as a person we are all confronted with temptations, some which could be seen as good and others that can get you into trouble. We are always confronted with decisions, like to either study or go out to party. In which having the skills of emotional intelligence will show which person has their priorities and goals straight. For me it has been beneficial when I have used my skills of emotional intelligence but that was not the case when I did not used it. Throughout high school studies always came first, so I missed out in a few weekends when I had to study for an exam or work on a project.
For the most part I have had control my feelings and desires but sometimes those two qualities get the upper hand on me. These are the instances that have gotten me into trouble in a couple of occasions; experiences which have helped me mature and become a better person. The desire to prove I was a better driver than my best friend ended up costing me six months of probation and my car getting towed and impounded, the feeling of overconfidence lead me to cut classes an instead of ending my Jr. semester with all A’s I ended up with all B’s. I had friends who did not see the point in school and ended up in gangs, drugs, alcohol, and eventually dropped out of high school. Reading Mischel’s conclusion of his experiment makes me realize that it is true, people with the ability of understanding and controlling their feelings and desires in life will be the ones that will succeed. I know from experience that falling into temptations in the past and even know have gotten me into problems or at least felt a sense of regret the next day.
I believe that everyone should think about every decision one makes and try to embrace the concept emotional intelligence. The results could be beneficial not just to the individual but to society as a whole. Maybe people will realize that money, power, pleasure, and greed are not essential to a good life or that we should not aspire to these things. Today people have fallen to temptation in which money became the number priority for them and everything else did not matter. Everyone should have desires in life but one should be patient and understand that it takes time and work to obtain them. If we are able to focus on other things instead of obsessing over one single thing or object maybe as people we would not make so many unwise decisions.
Living By a Love Ethic
“Any society which excludes, relatively, the development of love, must in the long run perish of its own contradiction with the basic necessities of human nature” (Living by a Love Ethic pg. 92). One would think that with such a foreboding prediction people would be more willing to move toward this communal love ethic that the author says is necessary for human survival. However that is not the case. As you can see within our own society we are driven by our capitalist inspired individual needs and aren’t particularly concerned about others. Our society is full of nay sayers who claim that “sexism is here to stay and the rich will never share their resources” (Living by a Love Ethic pg. 89). And those who feel as the author does and wants to see change lack the courage to actually stand up for what they believe and do something about it.
I don’t mean to sound pessimistic but what the author implies of everyone simply embracing this love ethic, just for the purpose of feeling more “human”, simply won’t happen, at least not in the way that the author wants to. I draw this reasoning from the Divided Self reading. This author paints a very vivid picture of how the brain works and how we struggle with our desires and distractions. The author uses the symbol of the elephant and rider to describe the human brain. The elephant symbolizes our wants, desires, intuition, and all other types of automatic thinking that we can’t truly control. The rider symbolizes our conscience actions and thoughts. Their relationship was described as one where the elephant is powerful and self centered while the rider tries to coax it (not always successfully) to its will. using this symbol I am able to understand how people are unwilling to act on a communal level. If the problem isn't directly affecting the person, it is hard for the rider to coax the elephant to move since its comfortable where it is. What the author from Living by a Love Ethics implies is that people should be motivated to move toward the love ethic since their most human side desperately seeks after it. Again I point to the symbol of the elephant and rider. While the rider may see the need to act and fervently tries to move the elephant towards the goal, if the elephant doesn’t want to move, it won’t move.
Yet I still remain optimistic about a society that is driven by love. While this self initiative model won’t work for the entire society, since only a few would be inspired to move, I believe that there is a way to move the elephant within everyone. It’s somewhat simplistic; make the elephant uncomfortable on a national level. The only way to move an elephant is to make it so that what it wants is leading towards this love ideal. I don’t know what type of catalyst would be needed to move the nation’s elephant, but I'm sure that it would have to be enormous.
I don’t mean to sound pessimistic but what the author implies of everyone simply embracing this love ethic, just for the purpose of feeling more “human”, simply won’t happen, at least not in the way that the author wants to. I draw this reasoning from the Divided Self reading. This author paints a very vivid picture of how the brain works and how we struggle with our desires and distractions. The author uses the symbol of the elephant and rider to describe the human brain. The elephant symbolizes our wants, desires, intuition, and all other types of automatic thinking that we can’t truly control. The rider symbolizes our conscience actions and thoughts. Their relationship was described as one where the elephant is powerful and self centered while the rider tries to coax it (not always successfully) to its will. using this symbol I am able to understand how people are unwilling to act on a communal level. If the problem isn't directly affecting the person, it is hard for the rider to coax the elephant to move since its comfortable where it is. What the author from Living by a Love Ethics implies is that people should be motivated to move toward the love ethic since their most human side desperately seeks after it. Again I point to the symbol of the elephant and rider. While the rider may see the need to act and fervently tries to move the elephant towards the goal, if the elephant doesn’t want to move, it won’t move.
Yet I still remain optimistic about a society that is driven by love. While this self initiative model won’t work for the entire society, since only a few would be inspired to move, I believe that there is a way to move the elephant within everyone. It’s somewhat simplistic; make the elephant uncomfortable on a national level. The only way to move an elephant is to make it so that what it wants is leading towards this love ideal. I don’t know what type of catalyst would be needed to move the nation’s elephant, but I'm sure that it would have to be enormous.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)