Think of 6 things you feel that you could never live without. What are they? A computer? An iPod? How do you assign so much value to an object that you deem it to be as important as your very being?
This may seem like an inane question, but it says a lot about the person in question, not just about their values, but about their personality as a whole. Some might prefer a certain item for its utility, i.e. its functionality in everyday life; a computer, a car, mobile phone, etc., are typical examples. Some might prefer a certain item for its sentimental value, such as books, certain jewelry, etc. Others might prefer items for more vain purposes, such as fashion trends or hedonistic urges. It all depends on how we, as individuals, are taught to view items and their relationships to us and the world.
Right now, write down (since you probably won't, just think about them) 6 objects without which you would feel incomplete. Answer these questions about them:
1. What is it about that item that you feel makes it desirable over anything else?
2. How would you function in your daily life without that item?
3. What in the major qualities of that item have a major effect, undeniable (usually positive) effect on your life? How does it affect your life positively?
Everyone's answers are different, but typically today most people mention mobile phones, computers, cars, television, books, and perhaps food.
On a more extreme note, some people seem to exaggerate the importance of certain items on their daily lives. It is entirely possible to live without all the daily amenities to which we have become accustomed, ie. the internet, computers, artificial lite, etc. Once a person is stripped of all his/her amenities, however, it becomes obvious that the items that were previously considered important are no more useful than a square wheel.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Trepidations
Oh boy.
Now that the GRE has been taken, I have the daunting task of applying for various fellowships, grants, and graduate schools. It's not so much the task of filling out forms or writing personal statements that I find arduous; it's more the fact that, little by little, I find my childhood slipping away as I head down the road to adulthood and responsibility.
With the combination of the end of some of my childhood favorites (Harry Potter, Smallville, etc.) and the inauspicious addition of impending graduate school, it seems that my future is hitting me at full force without allowing me to gently ease into it. I suppose though that anything inevitable always comes at full force; the only difference between how it hits us is our perception of it, I suppose.
Who am I to complain though? I am simply going through the same process that every human being has ever gone through and will go through until either the end of time or our species evolves into incorporeal forms of matter. Like many of my brethren, I feel like I'm not ready.
I feel like my childhood was not a childhood, but rather a shove into adulthood. My undergraduate college years feel as if every day has passed and little has been achieved. I'm not ready. I'm afraid.
I suppose that's why I related so well to Harry Potter. He never had the typical childhood, and neither did I. Unlike me, however, he shouldered the burden put on him to defeat Lord Voldemort.
I guess that makes the struggles before me my own personal Dark Lord. And just like in Harry, my struggles are too a part of my soul. Perhaps it's time to batten down the hatches and charge full-force at this malevolent apparition before me. I can overcome it. I am stronger than the struggles of my own creation.
Here's to hoping it doesn't take the destruction of Hogwarts for me to move forward.
Best,
DF
Now that the GRE has been taken, I have the daunting task of applying for various fellowships, grants, and graduate schools. It's not so much the task of filling out forms or writing personal statements that I find arduous; it's more the fact that, little by little, I find my childhood slipping away as I head down the road to adulthood and responsibility.
With the combination of the end of some of my childhood favorites (Harry Potter, Smallville, etc.) and the inauspicious addition of impending graduate school, it seems that my future is hitting me at full force without allowing me to gently ease into it. I suppose though that anything inevitable always comes at full force; the only difference between how it hits us is our perception of it, I suppose.
Who am I to complain though? I am simply going through the same process that every human being has ever gone through and will go through until either the end of time or our species evolves into incorporeal forms of matter. Like many of my brethren, I feel like I'm not ready.
I feel like my childhood was not a childhood, but rather a shove into adulthood. My undergraduate college years feel as if every day has passed and little has been achieved. I'm not ready. I'm afraid.
I suppose that's why I related so well to Harry Potter. He never had the typical childhood, and neither did I. Unlike me, however, he shouldered the burden put on him to defeat Lord Voldemort.
I guess that makes the struggles before me my own personal Dark Lord. And just like in Harry, my struggles are too a part of my soul. Perhaps it's time to batten down the hatches and charge full-force at this malevolent apparition before me. I can overcome it. I am stronger than the struggles of my own creation.
Here's to hoping it doesn't take the destruction of Hogwarts for me to move forward.
Best,
DF
Monday, April 4, 2011
What's a Snooki?
If you don't go to Rutgers, read the news, or hear anything about anything, then you probably haven't heard of the whole controversy surrounding Rutgers paying Snooki $32,000 to perform (whatever her kind of performance is) in front of the student body. If you don't know who Snooki is, then I applaud you and by all means, you don't have to read any further. Seriously, stop reading. It gets depressing after this paragraph.
That's a Snooki. What exactly comprises a Snooki is unknown, but after some scientific investigation, it is believed to have emerged out of a combination of Grumpy of the seven dwarfs, shame, and a particularly virulent strain of gonorrhea. She attained fame after being a whiney, strung-up harpie on a show called Jersey Shore, which may quite possibly be the absolute nadir for idiocy on television. She is about as tall as a garden gnome, and may just be related to some since she seems to be able to grow a beard at a moment's notice. Also, if she becomes infatuated with you, I would suggest arming yourself to the teeth with machetes and attack dogs. If all else fails, have a flame thrower because cutting of her head won't stop her.
Anyway, Rutgers paid her $32,000 to do a "comedy show," though the extent of her comedy would be her throwing up and having sex with the fattest person in the room after a night of excessive drinking. She likely also yelped like a chihuahua and then curled up into a ball to sleep. The largest point of contention is not just hiring her, but that she was paid more than the commencement speaker and Nobel laureate, Toni Morrison. Many are saying that it is a clear sign of the priorities at Rutgers, seeing as Snooki told students to "study hard, and party harder." Seriously.
I'm quite sure that Snooki got a 10 on the SATs even though 400 points are given for writing your name. Snooki once ate a worm because she thought that it was made of "gummies." She was 20. Snooki once confused George Washington for her grandfather because they are both old and dead. Snooki played "the troll" in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Snooki drinks out of a toilet when she's thirsty. Snooki's make-up qualifies her as a barbie doll, except she was denied to be one because she's too ugly and continually saps the souls and money of innocent men. I think you get the picture.
Either way, it's an affront to good sense and education. If you're going to get a comedian, at least get one that's funny and of good repute.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
That's a Snooki. What exactly comprises a Snooki is unknown, but after some scientific investigation, it is believed to have emerged out of a combination of Grumpy of the seven dwarfs, shame, and a particularly virulent strain of gonorrhea. She attained fame after being a whiney, strung-up harpie on a show called Jersey Shore, which may quite possibly be the absolute nadir for idiocy on television. She is about as tall as a garden gnome, and may just be related to some since she seems to be able to grow a beard at a moment's notice. Also, if she becomes infatuated with you, I would suggest arming yourself to the teeth with machetes and attack dogs. If all else fails, have a flame thrower because cutting of her head won't stop her.
Anyway, Rutgers paid her $32,000 to do a "comedy show," though the extent of her comedy would be her throwing up and having sex with the fattest person in the room after a night of excessive drinking. She likely also yelped like a chihuahua and then curled up into a ball to sleep. The largest point of contention is not just hiring her, but that she was paid more than the commencement speaker and Nobel laureate, Toni Morrison. Many are saying that it is a clear sign of the priorities at Rutgers, seeing as Snooki told students to "study hard, and party harder." Seriously.
I'm quite sure that Snooki got a 10 on the SATs even though 400 points are given for writing your name. Snooki once ate a worm because she thought that it was made of "gummies." She was 20. Snooki once confused George Washington for her grandfather because they are both old and dead. Snooki played "the troll" in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Snooki drinks out of a toilet when she's thirsty. Snooki's make-up qualifies her as a barbie doll, except she was denied to be one because she's too ugly and continually saps the souls and money of innocent men. I think you get the picture.
Either way, it's an affront to good sense and education. If you're going to get a comedian, at least get one that's funny and of good repute.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, March 14, 2011
A Turn for the Worse
Two of the largest news stories in the world have taken a turn for the worse:
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Saturday, March 5, 2011
A Current
The US media has seemingly set its news stories into a constant cycle of reporting on the civil war in Libya, the budget crisis, Charlie Sheen, and even a bunch of Christians proclaiming the end of the world is near; what I would like to focus on is journalistic integrity.
Journalistic integrity, as I see it, is the duty of every professional journalist to report a story objectively and without inserting their own bias; if there must be an opinion in a story, then there also must be a valid counter-opinion to balance the substance of the story. This definition immediately negates the Sean Hannitys and the Glenn Becks of the world, as they have been known to present arguments with both no basis in fact or logic.
Journalism and journalism media in general has been regarded as the fourth branch of the government, in that journalism media is supposed to provide another check on the government by making it accountable to the populace. Ideally, all (or most) people would read or hear the news, make a valid judgment and vote/contact their representatives based on that judgment in order to better participate in the democratic process.
Everyone and their mother knows that this is far from the truth. Unfortunately, news media is a product owned by corporations (with the exception of public news such as NPR), and is made to be sold. If a story, such as Charlie Sheen's antics, is selling, you focus more on Charlie Sheen then, say, the most conservative members of congress desiring to cut large percentages of planned parenthood and education from the budget. Thus, viewership/readership goes up, and due to that, increased revenue from advertisers desiring to display their product to the average consumer.
Regardless of this desire to increase revenue, journalists should still look to present stories in, as Fox News purports to do, a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately, there is no Hippocratic oath of journalism for me to call upon when demanding that all journalists remain loyal to the distribution of truth rather than truth as they see it. There is only the integrity of the field and the tradition of journalists such as Edward R. Murrow to guide every prodigal journalist along the journey; unfortunately, this does not count for much anymore. For example, Dan Rather, one of the more respected journalists today, did not report on the fallacy of the buildup to the Iraq War; instead, he touted his American pride by continually reporting on American firepower and the resoluteness of soldiers to fight. As a journalist, he failed the American people.
Increasingly, journalists are being replaced by pundits for creating opinions in people, and the result is disheartening, to say the least. A pundit's opinion, however skewered and factually incorrect, is accepted willingly simply because the pundit's beliefs coincide with the viewer's.
Is the field salvageable? Of course; nothing is ever completely lost. As of right now, though, it will take a lot of work to recover.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Don't forget to click here!
EDIT------
Apparently, there is a journalistic code of ethics. Just goes to show that I should take a journalism class in college. Even so, that makes it that much sadder.
Journalistic integrity, as I see it, is the duty of every professional journalist to report a story objectively and without inserting their own bias; if there must be an opinion in a story, then there also must be a valid counter-opinion to balance the substance of the story. This definition immediately negates the Sean Hannitys and the Glenn Becks of the world, as they have been known to present arguments with both no basis in fact or logic.
Journalism and journalism media in general has been regarded as the fourth branch of the government, in that journalism media is supposed to provide another check on the government by making it accountable to the populace. Ideally, all (or most) people would read or hear the news, make a valid judgment and vote/contact their representatives based on that judgment in order to better participate in the democratic process.
Everyone and their mother knows that this is far from the truth. Unfortunately, news media is a product owned by corporations (with the exception of public news such as NPR), and is made to be sold. If a story, such as Charlie Sheen's antics, is selling, you focus more on Charlie Sheen then, say, the most conservative members of congress desiring to cut large percentages of planned parenthood and education from the budget. Thus, viewership/readership goes up, and due to that, increased revenue from advertisers desiring to display their product to the average consumer.
Regardless of this desire to increase revenue, journalists should still look to present stories in, as Fox News purports to do, a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately, there is no Hippocratic oath of journalism for me to call upon when demanding that all journalists remain loyal to the distribution of truth rather than truth as they see it. There is only the integrity of the field and the tradition of journalists such as Edward R. Murrow to guide every prodigal journalist along the journey; unfortunately, this does not count for much anymore. For example, Dan Rather, one of the more respected journalists today, did not report on the fallacy of the buildup to the Iraq War; instead, he touted his American pride by continually reporting on American firepower and the resoluteness of soldiers to fight. As a journalist, he failed the American people.
Increasingly, journalists are being replaced by pundits for creating opinions in people, and the result is disheartening, to say the least. A pundit's opinion, however skewered and factually incorrect, is accepted willingly simply because the pundit's beliefs coincide with the viewer's.
Is the field salvageable? Of course; nothing is ever completely lost. As of right now, though, it will take a lot of work to recover.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Don't forget to click here!
EDIT------
Apparently, there is a journalistic code of ethics. Just goes to show that I should take a journalism class in college. Even so, that makes it that much sadder.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Zoon Politikon
For those of you who don't know, the Polish president died in a plane crash over the weekend. What I didn't realize was how much it affected those not even living in Poland.
A woman who works at the dining hall is originally Polish, obviously living in the US now. I was talking to her today, and I asked how her weekend was. She said that it was difficult for her because of the death of the president, and what I found was astounding was that she really felt anguish because of his death. I saw that as soon as she brought up the president, her demeanor became suddenly sadder. This was fascinating to me.
To me, the notion of someone grieving over the death of a political figure that one does not have to perfunctorily follow is alien. The US has been racked by overzealous partisanship and extreme polarization, mostly culminating in the fact that if, for example, President Obama were to suddenly die, many people would be glad. Sarah Palin, for one, would likely be ecstatic that he was gone, though she obviously wouldn't make the fact explicit. Even I would have been glad to see Dick Cheney keel over during his tenure in office, though we all know that he technically can't die because he doesn't have a heart. This raises an alarming question for me: are we, as the Greeks described, still the political animal, or have we become the intransigent animal? Even more, have we reduced the actual act of politics to one's religious and/or social beliefs to the point where a politician's actions no longer truly matter?
To end on a somewhat lighter note, here's a good bit of Germany philosophy vs. Greek philosophy:
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
A woman who works at the dining hall is originally Polish, obviously living in the US now. I was talking to her today, and I asked how her weekend was. She said that it was difficult for her because of the death of the president, and what I found was astounding was that she really felt anguish because of his death. I saw that as soon as she brought up the president, her demeanor became suddenly sadder. This was fascinating to me.
To me, the notion of someone grieving over the death of a political figure that one does not have to perfunctorily follow is alien. The US has been racked by overzealous partisanship and extreme polarization, mostly culminating in the fact that if, for example, President Obama were to suddenly die, many people would be glad. Sarah Palin, for one, would likely be ecstatic that he was gone, though she obviously wouldn't make the fact explicit. Even I would have been glad to see Dick Cheney keel over during his tenure in office, though we all know that he technically can't die because he doesn't have a heart. This raises an alarming question for me: are we, as the Greeks described, still the political animal, or have we become the intransigent animal? Even more, have we reduced the actual act of politics to one's religious and/or social beliefs to the point where a politician's actions no longer truly matter?
To end on a somewhat lighter note, here's a good bit of Germany philosophy vs. Greek philosophy:
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Thursday, February 18, 2010
In Memoriam
Celebrity deaths seem to be the biggest trend lately. Michael Jackson, Patrick Swayze, Billy Mays, Bernie Mac, that guy from the movie commercials, they all died within the last year. However, one death has gone relatively unnoticed by the general populace, and he was more important than any of those celebrities. He was a major influence in American history and modern political philosophy, and yet his death has been shoved to the wayside by the mainstream media like he never existed. I am talking, of course, about Howard Zinn.
Zinn actually died about 3 weeks ago when I was in Montreal, so I was unable to write about it at the time. I remember seeing his name as a ticker mention on CNN, and then going around to my friends and saying "Did you know that Howard Zinn died?" Sadly, no one knew who he was. Perhaps that shows this country's priorities, perhaps not; either way, it is a sad fact when a great thinker dies and few people even care.
I won't eulogize Mr. Zinn because I am not his biggest follower nor am I his most personal friend; I am simply a person who respects his impact upon the understanding of American history. While he may go relatively unrecognized by the hoi polloi of the world, I have some hope that his works will survive to the future, where they will be accorded the respect that they deserve. A man of his intellect is a man that should never be forgotten by his contemporaries; to be forgotten almost makes his monumental contributions meaningless.
Here's to you, Howard. I first read your work in 8th grade, and it was certainly the most verbose work that I had read up to that point. Maybe if the world were different, maybe if people payed attention to modern philosophy and understanding history, you would have a grand ceremony worthy of your contributions.
You will be remembered. I promise you that.
Howard Zinn, August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010
May his magnanimity flourish into the future.
Das Flüg
Zinn actually died about 3 weeks ago when I was in Montreal, so I was unable to write about it at the time. I remember seeing his name as a ticker mention on CNN, and then going around to my friends and saying "Did you know that Howard Zinn died?" Sadly, no one knew who he was. Perhaps that shows this country's priorities, perhaps not; either way, it is a sad fact when a great thinker dies and few people even care.
I won't eulogize Mr. Zinn because I am not his biggest follower nor am I his most personal friend; I am simply a person who respects his impact upon the understanding of American history. While he may go relatively unrecognized by the hoi polloi of the world, I have some hope that his works will survive to the future, where they will be accorded the respect that they deserve. A man of his intellect is a man that should never be forgotten by his contemporaries; to be forgotten almost makes his monumental contributions meaningless.
Here's to you, Howard. I first read your work in 8th grade, and it was certainly the most verbose work that I had read up to that point. Maybe if the world were different, maybe if people payed attention to modern philosophy and understanding history, you would have a grand ceremony worthy of your contributions.
You will be remembered. I promise you that.
Howard Zinn, August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010
May his magnanimity flourish into the future.
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)