Understanding

If I learned anything in my Philosophy major at Boston College, it was this: keep an open mind. Think freely. Listen to your friends. Listen to your enemies. Listen to everyone. Learn everything you can about this world and the millions of people around you and continue to grow as a person. No one has any idea where this life will lead us and no one individual is more important than any other. Seems like a simple concept, right?

WRONG.

The manner in which our society is constructed limits free thinking, equality, freedom of choice, creativity and happiness for those living in it.

Certain individuals have more power and influence than others either because of their background, wealth, political position, or random luck. Certain individuals never have a chance to even think about being wealthy or having a say. Certain individuals are discriminated against. Certain individuals are lauded for their accomplishments.

Could someone running for President in the United States as an independent candidate and ideas to shake things up ever succeed? NO. Without the backing of the Democratic and Republican parties and the funding and exposure that comes with it, no one can ever hope to making a significant change in the way things are.

As much as America is considered to be the land of the free, our socioeconomic and political structures encourages conformity, “knowing your role”, and “playing your part”.

I think one of the goals of philosophical study is discovering how we as individuals and as a collective can become happier. Now, I believe it is optimistic to think that everyone in this world can all be happy at the same time. There will never be a society where each and every person can have his/her own way. It is impossible. There are too many people and too many conflicting selfish thoughts and actions for everyone to be satisfied; however, I do believe there is one key to make the world a better place.

That key is UNDERSTANDING.

I typed the below blog post about understanding a while ago, but I never posted it, so with that introduction, I hope you like it (also, forgive me because I didn’t read through it that carefully again so there may be some weird stuff in it and it is a very rough draft):

People don’t give a **** about anyone but themselves, or do they? It is in age-old question that pretty much everyone has thought about. If each of us considers our own behavior and actions, it almost seems impossible to depart from our selfish ways. Charity and sacrifice are nice concepts, but they often seem like unattainable ideals.

As I have typed about before, some philosophers have argued that in a situation in which humans were in their “natural state” (no government / no society), there would be complete anarchy and every human being would act in a manner to ensure his/her own survival at all costs. The state would be characterized by murder, war, stealing – basically, total chaos.

If we look at how society is constructed today, we know that there is something (whether it is God, necessity, love, or whatever else) that brings humans together. From the very beginning of time, our basic human instincts led us to create complex political, education, communication and economic systems.

The progression took a while [huts >>>> villages >>>> towns >>>> cities], [telegraph, phone, radio, tv, internet], etc., but we now live in a world in which communication with anyone in any part of the globe at any time is possible. Without the desire to co-exist and collaborate, these structures would have never been developed. We need each other to have a fulfilling life.

Yet, despite all of these collaborate efforts, the human race remains at odds. The political climate in the United States is hostile - republicans and democrats are constantly criticizing each other through the media. Countries and the people within them are at war with each other. Crimes, including murder, are committed all of the time for a variety of reasons. People are chastised and discriminated against based on their race, religion and sexual orientation.

Instead of utilizing our monumental achievements in communication over the past 20 years to promote togetherness and understanding, we’ve allowed it to be just another a medium to promote negativity.

Before we think about solutions on how to solve these problems, we need to understand what we are up against.

Nature

Once we are capable of recognizing that other people besides us exist, we realize that each and every person is different. Some people are stronger than others. Some people are smarter. Some people are taller. Some people have different skin color. Some people are blind.

In terms of certain attributes, we were not all created equal.

Environment

Some of us were born in wealthy neighborhoods with robust educational systems and programs geared towards making us “successful”. Some of us weren’t. Some of us had two parents. Some of us were surrounded by positive influences. Some of us were born in violent environments in which people around us were killed everyday. Some of us have never seen a crime committed in our lives. Some of us worry about whether we should get a yellow or orange Porsche to add to our collection of 100 cars. Some of us wonder if we will ever own a car.

Competitiveness

In the United States, almost every situation we are placed in from the moment we are born is competitive. Everyone wants to be the best at every activity, whether it is sports, rapping, school, the workplace, etc, and those who are better than others at whatever activity is, are typically rewarded with money, power and fame.

Who is the best – Lebron or Kobe? Beauty pageants. “Why haven’t I been promoted – I am a better worker than that guy.” Gifted and talented programs. Educational grading system. SAT. “Safety School”.

Think about it – there are millions of examples.

Once we realize we cannot be the best at everything, society incentivizes us to carve out a niche for ourselves. Some people focus on music, some people focus on sports, some people focus on biology, etc. If I am good at finance and it’s going to make me money, why should I care about anything else? The result of this concept is increased / intense competition in particular fields (business, politics, science ,etc.) and a lack of understanding of other fields.

Summary of Differences

We are all different in terms of our biological attributes, skills, upbringing and, on top of that, we are encouraged to be competitive and look out for ourselves as we are growing up.

These factors have created the hostile and competitive world in which we currently live in with everyone thinking, “me first”.

Lack of Understanding

I believe that lack of understanding is one of the primary factors in driving discourse amongst humans and I am going to try to give a few examples.

Religion

How many people actually have taken the time to understand and learn about the religions they criticize so often? My guess is not many. I hear or read people equate Islam to terrorism all of the time. Think about the reaction to the construction of the Ground Zero “mosque” earlier this year.

Race

Racial discrimination, slavery, etc. What were people thinking when they instituted these concepts?

Background

Do people who have come from privileged backgrounds understand those who are homeless or never had the opportunity to be wealthy or have power?

Sexuality

People’s beliefs regarding heterosexuality vs. homosexuality evolve as they grow up and learn more about it (specially in the teenage / early-20s timeframe). Views can change dramatically with a little bit of understanding.

Others

There are so many other examples of how we can better understand each other. It is difficult to do sometimes, but I think the world could be a better place if we all made a better attempt.

A Conservation

About a week ago I was walking on the street and I was approached by an African American man who informed me that he had just gotten out of prison. Here is the conversation in paraphrased form:

Man: Hey man, can you give me a second, I just got out of prison. Where’s the E train at?

Me: Right there (points)?

Man: Hey, that’s not what I want. Can I get a dollar? I’m a dollar short.

Me: (hesitating) Ok, let me check my wallet (I wasn’t sure if I had one or not, but I found one). Here you go (I try to hand him the dollar).

Man: No, that’s not what I want (I probably appear confused and nervous to him). Hey man, I ain’t never robbed anybody. Why does no one understand that? Shake my hand.

So, I shook his hand and he wouldn’t let go of me. He tried to start talking to me and I pulled away from him and I said “Sorry, I can’t help you”, and I walked away very quickly into a nearby store. He walked down the block looking back at me and cursing.

I have no idea what the outcome of that situation would have been, but it is obviously still on my mind. I didn’t give a damn about that man and I ran away from the issue. I missed a potential opportunity to help out a person in need. If only I could have been a little more understanding.

In the Now

I recently read The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis. It is a good book. I don’t want to say too much about it because it’s probably a better read if you know nothing about it going in.

One of the many themes in the book is the human struggle to “live for the now” or embrace the present instead of always thinking about the future.

This seems like a difficult task to me in two ways. The first is the way in which we think and interact and the second is how we embrace/appreciate things.

Thinking and Interacting

If you think about conversations you might have on a day-to-day basis or when you meet people you haven’t seen in a while, they are typically about the future.

“What do you want to do with your life?”

“I can’t wait for my vacation in 3 months.”

“You got promoted? What are you going to do next?”

“The weather is supposed to be great tomorrow.”

“I didn’t like that new Lil Wayne CD, but Jay-Z’s Blueprint 3 is gonna be sick.”

“What are you doing this weekend?”

"I need some space. We will talk later."

In addition, human temperaments are mercurial (I don’t know if I used that word correctly but I think it looks cool). Our minds can shift from subject to subject and from the now into the future on a whim.

Appreciation

People often do not appreciate other people or things until they can no longer be with them or have them.

I admit I knew next to nothing about Ted Kennedy before he passed away, but I have learned about his fascinating life in the past few days. When I see people writing about him all over the Internet and praising him, I have to wonder why this didn’t happen when he was alive. Did those same people contact him when he was alive and tell him how much they appreciated him? I’m not trying to criticize because that would make me a hypocrite, but I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t seem like things work that way.

I can think of many other examples of this type of situation with celebrities, but it is also apparent in normal relationships we have with other people – either when a relationship is broken off (although I guess Kelly Clarkson didn’t think so judging by the lyrics in “Since U Been Gone”) or if someone close to us passes away.

What Now?

My understanding of the argument in The Screwtape Letters and in Christianity in general (please correct me if I am wrong) is that we must embrace the now in order to be a true Christian. We must realize that we are in God’s Kingdom right now and God is good. Everything around us is good. We should be happy with it. God created the world and us and is making all of our thoughts and actions possible. I couldn’t be writing this without Him. Nothing could be happening without Him and we should be infinitely thankful for it, no matter what happens.

The problem I have is that even if I believe in God and want to thank God with all of my heart, I have no idea how to do it. Should I run around saying “I love you, God” repetitively? Should I spread the word of God to others and try to convert them? Should I go to church for 1/168 of my time during a week and make hand gestures and repeat words, and then forget about Him for the rest of the week? How much should I be praying? What should I be praying about? What should my day-to-day activities be? What is the proper way of thanking God? What happens if I don’t believe in God 100%? How often should I repent for my sins? Am I sure I know what God thinks is a sin? Have I sinned too much?

In our minds (maybe not in God’s mind), humans are imperfect. It seems like we are programmed to do things we believe we shouldn’t have done and to want things we can never have. Maybe there is some leeway in how much time we should be thinking about the now and God, but I don’t know.

What are your thoughts on how much time you should be devoting to God and religion? Do you 100% believe in your religion or are you unsure? Do you have any techniques that help you think about the present more than the future? Do you think that thinking about the present makes sense, or do you want to think about the future?

Google

According to my Google Analytics, someone searched for "I am terrible at writing" and it led them to my blog. I guess Google has a high opinion of my writing.

Apparently, Talk is Cheap

This story on CNN today freaked me out:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/03/al.qaeda.video/index.html

What it says is that the 2nd in command of Al Qaeda doesn't care (or at least won't publicly admit he cares) about the overtures Obama has made towards a resolution of international conflict.

"Obama can come with all the eloquent words he has, but it is nothing but illusions."

I have no clue how to respond to this article. I don't know what specifically brought upon these words towards Obama, but for him to classify Obama as an illusionist seems insane to me. What can you do when you've made attempts to verbally resolve a conflict and the other side won't even engage in a friendly discussion or believe what you say? I guess I would try to get his number and just keep calling him and point out actions I was taking to show that my words were legitimate.

Shot in the Dark

I probably should type about racism cause it's all over the media right now and tearing my mind apart. In particular, I was startled by the death and bomb threats Professor Gates said he received as well as the "banana-eating jungle monkey" comment, but I want to wait on that issue until I fully digest everything and the whole story comes out.

As you may already know, I don't like guns. I don't like knives. I don't like bombs. I don't like nuclear or chemical weapons. I wish weapons never existed, but they do. Everyday I seem to hear a lot of stories of people getting killed by weapons - whether it's in the media or whether it's from someone I know.

For every "weapon hater" like me, I know there is someone that thinks weapons are awesome. People love movies with crazy explosions. People like hunting. On a global scale, some people don't seem to give a damn about mass destruction and war. It was "cool" that the USA hit Japan with atomic bombs. All the time, I hear people say, "Let's bomb the hell out of Iraq and just get it over with". Human history has been shaped by and is defined by massive wars. Listen to this song (language warning) by Fat Joe, MOP, and Gangstarr: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9nn5U8-87o They seem to like guns a lot.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want a person's life being taken away from him/her ever again by another person.

What I don't like about weapons is the potential power advantage it gives one human or one state over another. When I see a police officer carrying an automatic weapon, I feel squeamish. I don't think anyone should have the capability to take someone else's life so easily. I understand the argument of "guns don't kill people. people kill people", but at the same time, it's so much easier to kill another person if you have a gun.

On a global level, countries with the best weapons/technology/armies have all of the power. Do I think that's fair? No, but at the same time (for selfish reasons) I am glad I live in America at the moment for the freedom/protection it enables me to have. I also know that it is probably a good thing to have armed police officers in case the public needs to be protected.

The optimist and idealist in me wants to make all weapons illegal, take every weapon that currently exists, and destroy it. If all weapons were destroyed, no one would have an enormous power advantage over anyone else (except for natural physical strength). Crimes in general and murder would be much more difficult to commit. This is a good idea, isn't it?

The pessimist in me tells me that this solution is not feasible. The problem is (i) people are power hungry/selfish and (ii) people don't trust each other. If all weapons were destroyed, who is to say that someone wouldn't just make a gun and start shooting people with no one around to stop him. If the USA disarmed itself of nuclear capabilities, another country could just bomb us without any fear of repercussion.

Weapon creation has escalated from simple bows and arrows (there were probably other things before them) to weapons capable of instant mass destruction due to this lack of trust amongst people and hunger for power. The last couple of lines in Batman Begins (sorry if I am spoiling it for anyone) illustrate this:

What about escalation?

Escalation?

We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds.

And?

And *you're* wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this guy: armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card.

Given our current state, I'm not sure what solutions can be implemented to prevent murder/crime or at least better regulate who is carrying weapons, but I'm thinking about it.

JC (not just my initials)

I apologize for the incoherent nature of this post in advance - I just got home from work and it's after 1 am.

I was reading one of the articles on the cnn.com front page today about the oldest bible ever being posted online (see http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/) and it got me thinking about something that has always bothered me about Christianity.

I didn't have any sort of religious upbringing so correct me if I am wrong, but from what I've been told and read, Christian belief hinges upon the events surrounding the historical figure, Jesus.

If Jesus wasn't lying, Christianity is the right religion to follow and everyone who doesn't believe in it is wrong and maybe damned.

This passage from CS Lewis in The Problem of Pain explains it:

"The fourth strand or element is a historical event. There was a man born among these Jews who claimed to be, or to be the son of, or to be 'one with', the Something which is at once the awful haunter of nature and the giver of the moral law. The claim is so shocking--a paradox, and even a horror, which we may easily be lulled into taking too lightly--that only two views of this man are possible. Either he was a raving lunatic of an unusually abominable type, of else He was, and is, precisely what He said. There is no middle way. If the records make the first hypothesis unacceptable, you must submit to the second. And if you do that, all else that is claimed by Christians becomes credible--that this Man, having been killed, was yet alive, and that His death, in some manner incomprehensible to human thought, has effected a real change in our relations to the 'awful' and 'righteous' Lord, and a change in our favour."

The problem I have always had with believing the story of Jesus and the fact that Jesus even existed at all (not to say this will ultimately preclude me from ever believing in Him) is that in order to have ever learned anything about Jesus, I would have had to hear the story from someone or something else (talking to other people, reading texts, etc.) I then have to fully trust those people and historical texts. Furthermore, I have no idea who even wrote those historical texts.

My understanding is the Bible is the best source of information on Jesus. My question is (especially after reading about the oldest bible ever now being online and apparently being different from other existing bibles), which Bible do I read? I've heard there are lots of them. There are different interpretations and translations and many have been edited over the years. People disagree whether they were written directly by God, with "divine inspiration", or just by humans. I used to spend about an hour a day reading my version of the Bible that I acquired at Boston College. To be honest, I didn't get very far into the book as I thought it was difficult to understand (I don't know if it was the translation or my lack of intelligence) and hard to read. It also seemed to me (in certain parts) as if it were written by selfish humans who were looking to establish societal regulations, power for themselves, and control over others. I could picture humans in the modern day writing similar things. I admit I could be completely wrong about my perception of the Bible (and I hope I am) and maybe my opinions will change as I re-read. I want to believe in Jesus and the Bible - I really do - but I can't at this point. I do believe that I should be spending more time reading the Bible and taking it more seriously than I have in the past.

People who I have listened to on this subject typically take Jesus' existence for granted and they say, "why would He lie about something so important and compelling to the human race. How could he make something like that up" I get that point, but I also know that people (including myself) lie all of the time. People exaggerate stories. When you play the "telephone game" growing up, people can't keep a story straight for more than a minute. People claim they have seen aliens or UFOs. Do you think they are lying? Why would they have reason to lie about that? How does that benefit them? I always find it extremely difficult to believe stories from people I don't know that well. Even when I think of people I trust, I don't always believe everything they say. Jesus purportedly lived around 2000 years ago, so who am I supposed to listen to and what texts about Him can I be assured aren't comprised of lies or hyperbole.

Given the fact that I had no religious upbringing, I probably wasn't even aware of Jesus until I was older than 10 (maybe younger - my memory is terrible right now). It seems to me that the playing field for discovering Jesus is unequal. What if I had died when I was younger and before I even knew of Jesus potentially existing - how would that position me in terms of Christian belief and judgment? Would I just be sent to Hell for being ignorant? What if I was born on an island without access to many people, and the only people I had contact with never heard the story of Jesus? Things are easier now with modern means of communication, but what about a long time ago?

Aside from Jesus, I think there are many other ways to develop a spiritual/religious view of the world based on natural observations and thoughts. Morality, love, and the idea of the "otherworldly" seem innate to me. The story of Jesus doesn't seem natural to me - it takes a greater leap of faith. Not only do I have to trust his story (which is obviously remarkable and the most important story ever if true), but I have to sift through materials, books, and listen to/trust other people and believe that the story has been accurately portrayed throughout history. It's not something I can really discover or believe on my own (I acknowledge that my views on morality and love, etc. have also been shaped by other people, but I think it's in a different way). I know I should be devoting a significant amount of time to forming a position on Jesus, but I am also fearful of being misled.

At this point in history, I feel that society is so far removed from ancient times with all of these modern human advances and that determining whether Jesus existed or not isn't a priority for most people (I could be wrong about this but I know it hasn't been as great of a priority as it should be for me). I almost never have discussions with other people about whether they think Jesus existed or not. It seems to be either taken for granted or not believed at all. It confuses me.

Even though I am currently a "non-believer", I realize the story of Jesus has lasted throughout history and has had a significant impact (maybe the greatest overall impact of any single event) on human history, society, and beliefs. There is probably a reason for that and for everyone's sake, I hope the events are true. Personally, I know that I have to a better job of formulating an opinion on the events and believing in something. I do have existing spiritual beliefs and probably believe in some sort of loving creator, but I don't really know where to go from there. I also know that the consequences of apathy or non-belief could potentially be awful for me if I am wrong.

Life

There are times when the fragility of life becomes incredibly vivid for me. Reading about the D.C. metro crash today led to one of those moments. It disheartens and frightens me that something so terrible and unexpected could have happened to the unfortunate people who were on those trains. Why did this have to happen to these people? I can’t imagine the anguish that those who lost loved ones are feeling. It makes me feel fortunate to be living, but petrified that my life could end in a split second. It makes me question why I don’t value my life more. It makes me hope that I will continue to be able to live. It makes me feel awful for all of those who were affected by this incident today. It makes me depressed. It makes me wonder how I can simply overlook the pain and suffering that countless numbers of people experience every day and go on with my life as if I am invincible. It makes me question what I should be spending my time doing. It makes me feel selfish that I am thinking about my life right now, when the level of suffering I have experienced is nowhere near what other people have, and when my life is worth just as much as any other person.

Standardize This

The ridiculous cost of “higher” education. Standardized tests. Grades. Required curriculum. Selective admission processes. I don’t really like any of these things.

I understand there are benefits to these constructs, and I know people could easily argue against me (so you don’t need to bother). Still, I don’t like any of these concepts, which I believe restrict free and creative thinking and prevent people from getting the education they desire. You could say that not everyone has the right to get an education, and maybe it’s not a right. Maybe it’s a privilege, but I want everyone to have that privilege.

I don’t want someone’s socioeconomic status or the environment they are placed in from birth through high school to impact their ability to attend a college they want to. I was lucky to grow up in a situation where I barely had to do any work to get into a college that is highly regarded by employers. I know there are people that grew up in less fortunate situations that probably worked 10 times as hard as me and wouldn’t be able to attend the same school. I think that’s terrible and it makes me feel awful.

Children who grow up in an environment where they do not have the opportunity to attend schools that colleges respect are stifled by the system. It's not their fault - it's luck. How are they supposed to do well on standardized tests when they are not learning things that are going to be in those tests and when they may not care about the subject matter that is included in the test. I'm not sure, but I don't think I ever utilized a single thing I had to learn for a standardized test in my life. I'm barely utilizing anything I learned through my business major in my current business-related job, but I wouldn't have been able to get the job without the degree.

I think the occupation and higher education that you will ultimately have (or won't have) is too dependent upon the economic situation you were born into. The widening gap between rich and poor will never change if the educational system is not changed. I remember in one job interview (this was for the job I wanted most coming out of school), the interviewer told me I basically had no chance because I didn’t have a degree from an Ivy League school. I thought that was one of the more asinine things I have ever heard, but I guess I shouldn’t have any qualms with whatever suits that employer.

I want to start a university. A university that is free of charge and allows students to study whatever they want and allows professors to teach whatever they want.

I realize that there are a number of difficulties with this and my plan might not be feasible.

• Funding would definitely be a problem, especially because I wouldn’t be charging anyone.
• Attracting teachers and students to a different concept could be difficult.
• Since both students and teachers could teach/learn whatever they wanted, I’m not sure if there would be matching interests between them. How could I really set up classes? I’m struggling with this. I probably would have to place some boundaries on what could be taught, but I’m hesitant to do that.
• The perception of value of a degree from a university that doesn’t really have any standards could be low with potential employers and prospective students – also I’m not sure if I would even give out degrees and I don’t know if there would be a time limit on a student's stay at the university.
• I don’t think I would have many limitations on admission, so if the school became popular, I’m not sure what I would do. I think for the application process, I would just personally interview anyone that wanted to attend in lieu of anything written or formal.

I don’t really know if there are any significant benefits to this idea. Maybe amending the current system and modifying existing universities would be easier. I understand my thoughts might be a little bit crazy given the way the educational system currently is structured and how it’s interconnected with the economy, but maybe there is a solution somewhere in the middle.

Calling All Racists

If you dislike, hate, fear, or think you are better than another person or a group of other people because of your (i) race, (ii) religion, (iii) socioeconomic status, (iv) geographic location of upbringing/residence or (v) any other reason, I would like to talk to you or get an explanation from you.

In particular, I am concerned with racism and religiously driven hate, but I will listen to you about any other hatred or opinions you might have towards people. If you think you are better than a homeless person because you have money, a house, and consider yourself “successful”, I will listen to you to. If your skin color is black and you hate people with “white”-colored skin and you hate me, I will listen to you. I don’t discriminate.

I’m trying to figure out how racism started and why racial bias and racial hate still exist today. Why are racial stereotypes and jokes prevalent and why do people think they are funny? Does it excite you to berate someone because of his or her skin color or religious beliefs? Does it make you feel good to talk with your white friends about blacks when there are no blacks around? Is it an ego-booster for you? If you consider yourself to be Catholic, does it make you more confident in your beliefs to criticize people who believe differently? Do people who believe in other religions threaten you?

I think race relations right now are a complete mess. You can say the environment has improved since the days of slavery and 3/5, but bias and hate are still all over the place. I’m not basing this on any statistics – I’m just thinking about my interactions with and observations of other people. I’m sure you can find statistics if you want– for example, I don't know if this is a meaningful stat or not, but I just looked up how many Fortune 500 CEOs are black, and the number I came up with was 5.

As an aside, I have no idea how slavery ever started. Does it follow that if I am a person with white-colored skin and I come across someone with a different skin color, I decide to control him, punish/kill him if he doesn’t listen to me, and treat him as if he weren’t a human.

In addition to outward hate and “private” hate, there is a significant amount of unspoken tension between races. If someone criticizes someone of the same skin color for any reason (maybe a piece of clothing they are wearing, their actions, or their opinions), it is considered to be either all in good fun or to be constructive criticism, but if someone makes a comment about someone with a different skin color, you have no idea how they might react.

I want every human to be treated equally. I don’t care about skin colors, religions, cultures, or whatever. I want a peaceful environment for everyone to live in where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in whatever way they wish. The tension between races and the segregation of races in society disheartens me and frightens me. I just don’t understand it. I don’t even like racial classifications – why call someone black or white when everyone is the same - everyone is human.

I know a lot of people disagree with me, but I don’t really get to hear those opinions often. I don’t know why some whites think they are better than blacks and vice-versa. I don’t know why people generate stereotypes, believe in them so vehemently, and get excited about them.

So, if you do disagree with me or have any other thoughts, please let me know.

Everything is Amazing. Nobody is Happy.

For those who have been wondering why I haven’t put up any new posts in a while or have been displeased with my inactivity, here is my explanation:  I didn’t feel like it.  Also, I’ve been busy.

My inspiration for today is the Louis C.K.'s (I’m going to abbreviate as LCK going forward) interview on Conan that has been circulating around the Internet.  I put the link below.  I thought it was funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jETv3NURwLc

Basically, the premise of his speech is that everything in this world is “amazing”, but nobody is happy about it.

An example from the interview – humans can now fly on airplanes.  A couple hundred years ago, people had to walk around to get anywhere.  You could never travel across the country before, but now it takes a couple of hours.  Instead of rejoicing in the fact that they can fly, people are not satisfied and they complain about every little thing about this world:  they get angry that their flights are delayed; their Wi-Fi isn’t working on the plane, the food wasn't good enough, etc.   He goes on to call our generation of complainers “spoiled idiots” and “non-contributing zeros”.

So after watching this interview, I am trying to figure out why people aren’t happy with “human/technological progress”, what the cause of complaint is, and how complaint affects our society.  Is our generation any different from prior generations?  Are we more self-centered?  Are we “contributing” (whatever that means) nothing to society?

Amazing doesn’t equal happy

I don’t really care about airplanes or any other human inventions, but I will say that life itself is amazing.  The fact that you, I, every human and every other life form exists is incredible.  It’s a miracle.  I have no idea how this complex world was created and how everything has weaved together so perfectly.  God?  Nature is mind-boggling to me.  Outerspace is amazing.  The biological composition of the human body is amazing.   The human capacity to think, love, and communicate is amazing.

But, as LCK points out in his interview, no one is happy.   Although LCK might purport to be happy about human progress, LCK clearly is not happy.  He is spending his time on national TV (time that most people will never have the opportunity to have) complaining and whining about people who complain about Wi-Fi not working on an airplane.

Nature of Humans

The fact that humans even exist at all is amazing, but we don’t care.  That's human nature.  

There are a couple of problems with humans.  At our core, there is a major disconnect between what we want and what we can ever get.

If we think about our desires - knowledge of all things, power and ability to control and understand others, selfishness, purpose, love, immortality, invincibility, etc. – we realize that (i) we can never get what we want and (ii) we don’t know why we want these things.  We might even ask ourselves if we would be better off if we were just satisfied with the way we are.

The world around us seems to have been around forever, but we are temporary beings.  We are going to die.  No matter what impact we have or what achievements we are recognized for, we will be dead and ultimately forgotten.  When we die, who knows what happens?

We have no clue why we exist, who made us, what our purpose is, and why we even want to have a purpose.

Human interaction can make us happy

Humans are naturally self-centered.  People (including me) constantly complain about everything imaginable.   People want to have everything their way. 

Deep down I think humans know that they shouldn’t be selfish (there is a massive world around us, and as soon as we interact with another human, we know we aren’t “special”).  Once we realize that our selfish desires can't be achieved alone and that we shouldn't be selfish, we need to find another way to make us happy.

This is what draws us to other humans.  Communication with other humans can make us happy.  The fact that an airplane exists isn’t going to make us happy, but the fact that we can share an airplane ride and discuss it with another human might.  If we see a movie that we disliked, we want to be able to talk to someone else about it.  It’s not actually seeing the movie that makes us happy.  Knowing that someone else agrees with our viewpoint satisfies our ego.

Life is a selfish struggle for all of us, but we revel in the fact that other humans are struggling too.  We complain and someone else says “me too”, and we are temporarily satisfied.  Helping someone else with their struggles also gives us satisfaction.

In addition, the capacity to love and be loved is something that seems a little different than our other desires – it seems attainable.

I have been a little bit all over the place but I am going to try to summarize my thoughts succinctly here: 

Complaint

Complaint is a result of the flawed nature of humans.  We want things and we can’t have them so we complain.  We complain because we want to have our say and we want others to sympathize with us. 

Complaint is a driver for human invention.  If no one complained about the original airplanes being too slow, we wouldn’t have the airplanes we have today.  LCK complains about people complaining, but all of the complaining that he is angry about has created all of the things he thinks are amazing.  If people didn’t complain about prior forms of transportation or communication and humans were satisfied with everything that existed at that point in time, we would never have planes, the Internet, cell phones, etc.

Generations

Our generation is no different from any other generation.  Our surroundings may be different and the number of things we have to complain about may be different; however, people will always be the same.  People will always be unhappy and unable to comprehend human nature and the world around them.  People will always be self-centered.

Humans have been around for thousands of years (if you believe in history), and no one has figured out the answer to basic questions:

How can people be happy?

Why do humans exist?  Who made us?

What should I and other humans be doing?

Is life worth living if we are going to die?

Criticize our generation all you want for being “spoiled” and not “contributing”, but you and I don’t even know what anyone should be contributing to.

Happiness

Life is a never ending struggle.  Love and interaction with other humans can comfort us and make life worth living.  So can religion and the idea of an afterlife (if you believe in it).  Without those two things (other humans and possibility of something more), life is meaningless.

Potential

I have the potential to be great.  I have the potential to be a failure.  I have the potential to be dead tomorrow.  I have the potential to live for 100 years.

Potential and possibility can be comforting.  "I'm not satisfied with my life now, but in 5 years I am going to do great things.  I will eventually be happy".  I think I am programmed to view my life in this way, and I think society is too.  In the workplace,  you have the concept of "paying your dues".  In the NBA, you have players with tons of "potential" getting drafted before players who have performed better in the past.  I'm usually thinking about what I am going to be doing in the future (as if I have any clue), rather than about what is happening right now.

For this reason, I think the concept of "potential" can be dangerous.  I've often had people tell me I am going to be a "rich man" one day.  It might be a nice 5 second confidence boost, but a statement like that may never come true for a plethora of reasons.  

I can think of many of them right now - I am lazy, I procrastinate, I don't have an aggressive personality, and I don't even know if I want to make a lot of money.  I don't know what I want at all.  I think part of the cause for this apathy and passiveness is some sort of circularity.  I have this idea in my head that I have all sorts of potential.  I can afford to be lazy now because things will just happen for me in the future.  The reality is, I have a big ego and that's about it at this point.  I have a false sense of comfort, security and privilege.   I come up with ridiculous thoughts of things I will be doing in the future, but I never act on any of them.  It is repulsive now that I think about it.

So, I don't really know what to conclude from this, but I would like to rid myself of this idea of potential because I think it's potentially a major vice. 

Mind on my Money. Money on my Mind.

After listening to at least 1000 rap songs about money, I know that at least some people are thinking about it.

I have a few questions about money, but I think they all come down to one in the end:  “Why does money exist”?

People often get asked the question, “If you won the lottery, would you keep your job?”  Winning the lottery is potentially a liberating event - something that would free you from the societal need of money for survival, but would it free you from the desire for more?

I have another question:  if money didn’t exist, what would you be doing?  Would it be anything like your current occupation?  How would you spend your time? 

Here is what I think about money.  I have no idea what people think about these and I’m doing this without any research – let me know if you disagree.

1.     Money was created to provide humans with an incentive to serve others.  Would you dedicate your life to serving others without receiving something in return?  Would a construction worker build a house for someone out of the good of his heart if he weren’t being compensated?  In my mind, no one is going to totally sacrifice themselves for others.  “You help me out and I’ll help you out.”  Or,  “I’ll help you out if I get money, which will satisfy my personal needs/wants.”  With money came other social concepts – status, power, etc.  Even if you think about jobs which appear to be more “human-driven” than others - say a doctor or a teacher - I’m not sure if these jobs would have ever existed without a monetary system in place.  Granted, you may also feel better about yourself in jobs like these that might make you believe you are doing something useful for others.  Without a monetary system, I think anarchy prevails.

2.     Money has fostered competition, jealousy, and greed amongst humans.  Money is responsible for the concept of “invention”.  Money is also responsible for most of the crimes in the world today (I have no stats to back that up).  Money is a distraction from boredom.  The monetary system controls human life.

3.     The “value” of anything is based on whatever someone else will pay for it.   The stock market and monetary system were created by humans, and their success or failure will continue to be driven by human emotions relating to those systems.  If humans no longer “buy-in” (pun intended) to the idea of the stock market, it will fail.  “Expert” investors can claim that their “success” is a result of genius, sophisticated mathematics/formulas, or whatever, but unless someone else agrees with whatever they are doing or “values” something similarly using a different methodology, their “genius” or “sophisticated formula” is worthless.  In business you often hear the expression “it’s an art, not a science”.  Really, it’s about manufacturing ideas and a story and getting someone else to believe in it.

      Thought experiment - you and I are the last 2 people on earth.  I have a supply of water and food that will allow me to live for 100 days.  You have a supply of gold and try to exchange some gold for my water.  Who has more "value" now?  I guess neither of us cause that situation would be awful for the both of us and I probably wouldn't want to live alone, but hopefully you get my point.

4.     In our society, money gets you a lot of things.  Your basic necessities – food, housing, health.  After your basic needs you have things that you don’t need, but you might desire.  These include pleasure, power, status, etc.  Examples include a “bigger” house, “better” food, entertainment, a really big TV, etc. You might think, “people will like me more and I’ll feel better about myself if I can afford to live in a mansion”.  Who knows?  In my mind, money can’t get you happiness.

5.     Money is a self-propagating or self-fulfilling concept.  If money never existed, the big TVs you need money to buy would never have existed.  Also, in general, it costs money to make money (i.e. college degree required for high-paying job).

6.     The function of the finance arm in our economy is to facilitate the growth of all industries in the monetary system including the finance arm itself.  If I want to start a business in our society right now, I need to have someone give me the money.  The money had to be created at some point in time.  A bank will help me get money – either by creating the money or connecting me with someone who has money which has already been created.  The bank will also make money just by creating money (the concept of interest) and collect fees for their services.  Right now it seems like a lot of people are unhappy with the level of complexity in the financial industry and with the amount of money people in finance are making.  There is a perception that many or all people who work in finance are greedy.  Why is the majority of the country’s wealth held by a small percentage of people?

7.     Creating money out of “nothing” (leverage) is the driver for all past economic “growth”.  There are ebbs and flows, but generally people seem to agree with the foundation of debt and the leverage “bubble”.  I mean, more and more money needs to be manufactured or else more of it would never exist.

8.     Given the current level of dissatisfaction, some changes will probably be made to the system that satisfy enough people with social status to get the monetary system moving again.  People seem to generally have confidence in Obama and the government and people tend to forget about the past.  The rich will continue to be rich and the poor will continue to be poor, and the wide disparity in social status will persist.  We’ll ultimately run into another period in which people are unhappy with or lack confidence in the system, and the cycle will continue.

Judging a Leader

I have always wondered what makes a good leader.  Before I start, I want to define "leader" as someone who is elected by people to make decisions for those people - for example, the president of the United States.  I guess there are all sorts of other types of leaders, but whatever.

First of all, I want to say that I'm not sure how to evaluate a president or if I should be judging a president at all.  I have no insight into the inner workings of the government. Whether it's lack of access or laziness, I have no idea how the president is making decisions and what his thought process is.  I don't what kind of information or technology he has at his disposal.  I don't know why he even wanted to be president and I don't know what his personality is like. I've never spoken with him - I'm limited to what I hear from others, TV, Internet, news, etc.  I look at it as all a big "show", but maybe that's just me.

I also think it's extremely easy to judge decisions in hindsight. Everyone wants to criticize George Bush and Republicans now.  It's been a fad for a while and people really seem to get excited about it.  I view things in a different way.  I look at events and decisions that happened and I think that in our course of history, there is no other decision that could have been made at that time.  What happened, happened.  Life will continue to flow and there's no sense in criticizing the past.  We are where we are now and our lives and our society will be molded by our present and future desires, beliefs, and choices.

I could also look at events in a different way.  I could say, what if America didn't engage Iraq in a war?  What would our country and the rest of the world be like?  Would a positive or negative outcome have resulted? Would America still be around?  But like I said, this thought process won't get me anywhere because one choice was made and we are living the consequences of that choice and all other historical choices up until this point.

For some reason, people always want to verbally attack and judge others for past activities. I do it myself and I don't know why.  Even now I am just criticizing the "criticizers" and I probably appear to be a hypocritical idiot. 

Anyway, I think I may be arguing against myself because I've shown that I think judging decisions is kind of a pointless activity, but I still want to think about 2 types of leaders.

First:  

A powerful, opinionated leader.  This is someone who makes choices on his own.  Someone who doesn't listen to anyone.  Someone who will pick an alternative even if everyone else in his country disagrees with him.

Second:

An analytic decision maker.  Someone who can clearly understand what other people are thinking.  Someone who isn't entirely sure about how things should be.  This person likes to listen to others - maybe an expert on a particular topic - or listen to everyone, and makes his decisions based on what he believes to be the collective will.  This person will even reach out to everyone who voted against him and embrace their thoughts.

I'm not sure if leaders in these specific characterizations exist.  I'm guessing that most people are somewhere in between.

I think the 2nd type of leader can be judged in a few ways:

From what I've been told, our current president likes to listen to as many opinions as he reasonably has time for.  I see remarks in the news such as: "Bush would never listen to me. It's a totally different White House now."  At the same time, I see people chiding Obama for "flip-flopping" on issues.  Some people perceive him to be a weak decision-maker.  Some of his campaign ideas apparently haven't held (I'm not personally sure if they have or have not, nor do I care).  There are trackers that look back at everything he said during the campaign and accuse him of lying.  I would argue that if anyone was tracking me, I would be a "flip-flopper" on a ridiculous amount of things I say or do.  My opinions change all the time.  I take in new experiences and hear new thoughts from other people and I am a different person because of it.

For the 1st leader: 

Some don't want a "flip-flopper".  They want a strong leader who has a belief system that they elected him for and that they believe he should stick to.  What would "Democrats" think if Obama had a change in his overall ideology and his thoughts were more aligned with what people consider to be "Republican"?  Others will argue that a strong leader is out of touch with the public if they perceive that he has made multiple/meaningful "incorrect decisions".

What do you think?

Random Thoughts

Up until 4 or 5 years ago, I did not believe in the possibility of God existing.  I didn't believe that the Bible was written by anyone special.  Never looked at it.  I didn't trust religious stories or leaders.  Never entered a church or any place of practice growing up.  I didn't even want to listen to anyone talk to me about God.  I was rude and obnoxious to others and I didn't properly respect other people's thoughts.  I wanted to be rich and have a lot of power - that would make me happy.  I didn't need religion to satisfy me.  

I still don't know what to think about anything, but my mind is open to all perspectives.  I'll listen to anyone and read everything I can.  About a year ago, I set aside an hour or so a night to the read the Bible for a while.  I started praying. Of course, I didn't really know who I was praying to, but I tried.

I'm not sure how this change came about and I don't really know where I am going with this post.  I also don't want to talk about me that much, but I will say that being open-minded has provided me with more comfort and stability internally.  The struggle for knowledge satisfies me and makes me feel like I am actually accomplishing something.  At the same time, I'm not sure if I am really learning anything, and I am still as lost as ever.  I don't know the best way to utilize my time.

I've read many reasons why and why not to believe in God, but these are the basic reasons why I want to believe in God.  These could be selfish desires that are never realizable and maybe it's wrong of me to think that I should ever attain them.

1.  Eternal life.  Death frightens me.  How can life be so tragic?

2.  Happiness.  While I may be temporarily distracted and happy at times, my overall existence is miserable.  I'm dissatisfied with my actions and with my lack of knowledge.  I don't see how I will ever be happy in this life.  Maybe it's wrong of me to think I should even be happy.

3.  Purpose.  What should I be doing?

4.  Understanding.  Why do humans and this world exist?  How did this all happen?

5.  Morality.  I want to believe that all humans are good and have a God-given sense of morality.  I'd like for every human to be valued equally and treated with respect.

An Email

I received an email today.  It was well-written and summarizes an article from the Atlantic.  It also contained a link to that article.  

The email was from my friend, Eric.  It is interesting/unbelievable how life plays out out sometimes.  We were randomly placed together in a room freshman year at BC, and I don't think it could have worked out any better.  We lived together for a couple more years and have remained close friends and will be life-long friends (unless I screw something up).  Eric is a positive thinker, is always looking to help out other people, and is someone I know I can always count on.

Anyway, this email is about happiness.  I'm never happy.  Just saying.

Here it is:

Jon,

Read this article,I know you'll enjoy it. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/happiness

Inside the article, the head of this study summarizes four levels of human defense mechanisms. He believes that consistently utilizing level three and four defenses is a key to overall happiness and contentedness as we age. Here they are, summarized:

 

1)  Psychotic adaptations: paranoia, hallucination, megalomania

2)  Immature adaptations: acting out, passive aggression, hypochondria, projection, fantasy

3)  Neurotic adaptations: intellectualization (mutating the primal stuff of life into formal thought); dissociation (intense, often brief, removal from one’s feelings); repression (naïveté, memory lapse, or failure to acknowledge input from a selected organ)

4)  Mature adaptations: altruism, humor, anticipation (looking ahead and planning for future discomfort), suppression (a conscious decision to postpone attention to an impulse or conflict, to be addressed in good time), and sublimation (finding outlets for feelings, like putting aggression into sport, or lust into courtship)

Also important: further education, stable marriage, not smoking, no alcohol abuse, moderate exercise, healthy weight.

All of his data so far lead to this conclusion: "The only thing that really matters in life are your relationships with other people."

Broken Promise

Every time I say I am going to write a certain topic, I never do, so I'll probably stop doing that in the future.  

Focus has always been a problem for me.  I feel like I should be devoting my time to issues or life questions which are important to me (i.e. religious belief, purpose, etc.), but work, temporary pleasure, laziness, and material distractions get in the way.  For example, I was moving for the past few days and busy with work, and I didn't really think about much the whole time.  That makes me feel useless.  There are books I have been meaning to read for the past 5 or 6 years and I still haven't even started them.  I don't know what's wrong with me.  I don't like the fact that I have a sense that I will be around for another day and can just procrastinate on thought and activity.

One of my former professors posted an article about debate on facebook a few days ago - I just saw it and thought it was interesting.  Here is the link:

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/316614-3/Perspective/Debate_In_the_Public_Square/

Trust Me. This will be good.

When I think about trust, I think of two kinds, but maybe there are more or less – I don’t really know how to define them, but I’ll call them “instinctive trust" and “personal trust” 

Instinctive Trust – An act of trust that one commits without thinking about it

Examples:

Eating food prepared by someone else (a restaurant) > trust that whoever prepared the food knows what they are doing and didn’t put any harmful substances in it

Riding on an airplane > trust that the pilot is properly trained and in the right state of mind to fly, the plane is well-built and won’t break-down mid-flight, etc.

There are a countless number of these.

With instinctive trust, we often risk our lives without doing any research, without personally knowing, meeting, or talking to whoever is providing a service for us, and without calculating the dangers we might face.  For whatever reason, we don’t like to live in fear.  When we walk outside amongst a crowd of people, the idea of one of them flipping out and killing us doesn't typically cross our mind.  Our instincts are shaped by past experiences, we build habits and we establish confidence.  In reality, anything could happen at any time.

Personal Trust

Trust is interwoven into our day-to-day actions; however, when it comes to personal matters, we are far less trustworthy.  We keep secrets.  Relationships are strained because one person doesn’t trust another.  We identify certain people as “bullshitters”.  We’re not sure if a person is right when they are giving us a piece of information.  Some people only reveal information to a small group of friends, the “circle of trust”.  People keep diaries because they need to vent but don’t want anyone reading their thoughts.  Some of us “don’t trust anyone”.

It’s an interesting phenomenon when you think about it because you are instinctively trusting people you have no contact with everyday, but you can’t trust people you have known all your life.

Life Decisions and Trust

Some of the most important aspects in life come down to the element of trust.  Do we trust our teachers?  Do we trust our religious leaders?  Do we trust the story of Jesus?  Do we trust our textbooks?  Do we trust that we know who wrote the Bible?  Do we trust presidential candidates? For a lot of these matters, we can’t actually meet the person we are attempting to trust.  I would be interested in going back in time to meet Jesus, but I can’t so I have to rely on others or my own beliefs.  I don't even know if Jesus existed, but I may trust that he did based on what I have read or been told.

A story I like which relates to trust is presented in the book "The Black Swan":

A farm animal is raised by a human all of its life.  The animal gets treated well by the human only to one day be killed for food.  From the farm animal’s perspective, it might have thought it had a pretty stable life and nothing could go wrong.  The animal trusted the human, but in the end, the human had a different idea in mind all along.  

Ultimately, I think skepticism is a healthy emotion but trust is embedded in every decision we make.

I wanted to think about trust a little bit because I am going to write about miracles soon (not today and maybe not this week because I am moving and won’t have Internet access).  If you don’t have any inclination to believe in supernatural experiences, trusting someone’s story about a supposed miracle is a difficult thing.  I never believed that a miracle was possible throughout my life, but when someone I trusted and respected presented me with the story of a miracle a few years ago, it changed my perspective.

Locked up

Viewpoint 1: 

The fact that there are currently people trapped inside prisons throughout the United States troubles me.  I don’t like the idea of prison.  Why should another being, a human, have no access to the rest of society?  I can’t imagine what this lack of freedom feels like and how terrible living life in a small cage must be.

What is the prison system accomplishing?  It segregates people who have committed acts that the majority of the public disagrees with, but crime continues in an endless cycle.   People who steal come out of prison and immediately begin stealing again.  Same with drug dealing - "either you're slinging crack rock or you've a wicked jump shot" - what is the cause of this mentality that is prevalent amongst some people?  Prison isn't going to fix any of these problems. 

Innocent people get harmed everyday.  Once in a while, a story will hit the news that gets everyone talking about how awful crime is – usually a story about a person with “so much potential” who was murdered at a young age.  Hours later, everyone moves on with their lives and says: “That’s terrible. Good thing that didn’t happen to me.  At least the killer will be in prison so I don’t have to worry about it.”  

Instead of focusing on permanent changes to our social system and solving these issues, we temporarily lock our problems away.

Viewpoint 2:

The fact that there are currently people killing other people, stealing from other people, raping other people, selling substances with malicious and addictive properties to other people, and physically harming other people, troubles me.  Why should a person harm another person in any way?  These people are a danger to society.  They disgust me.  How can we live with these types of people around?   They should be holed up until they die. 

I’m more of a believer in Viewpoint 1 than Viewpoint 2, but I don’t know how to reconcile these two views and what the proper resolution is.

I think in the future I’ll type more about some different crimes like drug use/dealing and stealing for which I believe there may be answers, but I want to address murder here.

Human on human killing is something I can’t understand.  It’s an unfathomable act to me, but killing, in general, is a major aspect of life.  Animals kill animals.  Animals kill humans. Humans kill animals (probably an astonishing number throughout history if you think about it).  Human kills humans.  Killing another human during a war is “ok” but killing another human outside of war is a terrible act.

What is the cause of murder?  I guess in some cases you can point to basic human traits – jealousy, anger, greed, competitiveness, and survival instincts.  Then, there are ideological differences. “Hate Crimes”.  Biological composition - insanity. 

Has anyone ever talked to someone who has killed another person?  I’d like to hear about that.

Killing is an act that I’m not sure how to prevent.  Problem is that I feel like it’s driven by basic human emotion in many cases.  There aren’t really any changes that can be made to societal structures that will stop murder because the cause of murder isn’t related to these constructs.  You can threaten people all you want with the death penalty and prison, but if someone wants to murder someone, they’ll probably do it anyway.

I do think there are better ways to get over ideological differences and that all-out wars can be thwarted, but obviously, history doesn’t agree with me and large-scale battles have occurred numerous times.

Don't Worry, Be Happy

A lot of people have told me that I have a problem with being overly pessimistic.  So when I was reading “Is Life Worth Living?” by Williams James the other day, I was happy to learn that most of it was about pessimism.  Also I think I am losing my memory because I’ve definitely read this before but forgot about it almost entirely.

James’ argument is that pessimism is caused by a conflict between (i) the natural life which we experience everyday and (ii) the desire to experience something greater than nature (a religious or supernatural purpose or perhaps an “afterlife”). 

Put in other terms, “if I am going to ultimately die anyway, and what I do in this physical life has no purpose beyond that, what’s the point of me living at all?”  

Another common question is “why is there evil in this world if God is good and God created this world?”.  Certain evils like death seem inexplicable and absolutely awful.

In James’ words:

“Every phenomenon that we would praise there exists cheek by jowl with some contrary phenomenon that cancels all its religious effect upon the mind.  Beauty and hideousness, love and cruelty, life and death keep house together in indissoluble partnership; and there gradually steals over us, instead of the old warm notion of a man-loving Deity, that of an awful power that neither hates nor loves, but rolls all things together meaninglessly to a common doom”.

The two solutions he offers for alleviating pessimism are:

1.     Don’t believe or think about anything religiously.  Take the world “as is”. 

2.     Continue to view everything in a religious way and build your faith through “supplementary facts” and experiences.

Solution 1 doesn’t appeal to me because I have an inclination to think about a supernatural purpose all of the time.  I guess basic “natural” reasons to live are to improve this world for the next generation or out of respect for ancestors who allowed us to be in the position we are in now.  There’s probably a lot more, but that’s not really how I think.

Solution 2 is how I live.  I’d like to think there is a greater purpose to life than just this physical world that I can sense around me.  I have a desire for it (along with other things, like knowledge).  Maybe I’m wrong, but if I don’t believe in a greater purpose, I’ll never have any chance of finding it.

When you think about it (or at least when I think about it, if you disagree with me), everything hinges upon belief or desire:

Belief that I might get a job if I apply >>>>> application>>>>> interview >>>> job

Belief that my girlfriend will marry me if I ask >>>> proposal >>>>>>> marriage 

Belief that there can be a cure for cancer>>> clinical trials>>> cancer treatments and maybe a cure someday.

Belief that someone might read my thoughts >>>> writing >>>> blog>>people reading

Belief that life might exist outside of Earth >>> telescopes/spaceships/satellites >>>> discoveries about other planets, etc. 

All of these beliefs are driven by a human desire – knowledge, love, health, etc.

If you have a desire within you for a religious/supernatural purpose, why not continue to believe?  That’s that only way you will ever have a chance of fulfilling your dreams.

For "agnostics" – you should definitely check out James’ essays.  May lead you in a different direction or affirm your agnosticism.  Either way, I think it’s time worth spending.

There are some people out there who always seem happy or always seem depressed.  I’d like to hear your view on this subject.

I've been thinking about using thesaurus.com more so I don't repeat words like belief and desire 1 million times, but I was too lazy today.

Philosophy of Physics

I am having trouble focusing right now after a long day out (including private karaoke with someone who may have been the lead singer of Journey) but I wanted to type something.

In college, I took a class called Philosophy of Physics.  Never liked physics, but it sounded cool. It ended up being one of my best classes, so I was thinking of blogging about quantum this weekend (I like the word "quantum" by the way).  Quickly, my thoughts moved to another subject.

The best thing about that class was my professor, Father Ron Anderson.  He was undoubtedly one of the most passionate, intelligent, open-minded, mild-mannered and articulate people I have ever met.  He truly cared about his students.  

At one point when I was enrolled in the class, I was in a "funk".  It was the first semester of senior year.  I was having a difficult time finding a job, and I was skipping a lot of my classes and not really doing anything useful with my time.  I skipped Father Anderson's class (at the time, I felt awful about it because of the great deal of respect I had for him; it was already a really small class, and it only met once a week).

So, I emailed the weekly paper to him and created an excuse for missing class.  He offered for me to come into his office on another day to talk about the readings.  I accepted and when I got there, we didn't really talk about the paper.  I think he could sense I was struggling, and we had a conversation about what my aspirations were and what I wanted to do with my life (the kind of conversation that makes you think "why does this person care so much about me and my happiness?").  I was blown away by his thoughtfulness.

After this conversation, things went back to normal.  I started attending class again.  That was the only time I had an extended one-on-one talk with him.

In class, Father Anderson used to go around the room and ask each student for their opinions on the week's reading.  I was always nervous because I was often ill-prepared, didn't fully understand the topics, and am not the most eloquent speaker.  What I realized from this activity was that Father Anderson was an outstanding listener.  Every time someone spoke, he understood their thoughts, expanded on them, and offered suggestions to that person.  He quelled all of the anxiety I had and made my thoughts seem relevant.  In addition, Father Anderson would send emails to the class about articles he thought were interesting and maintained a website with links relating to different philosophical subjects - if there was a man who lived for others, in my mind, it was him.

About a year after I graduated, I was looking at the BC philosophy website and learned that Father Anderson passed away at the age of 57.  It was unexpected and truly shocked me.  I was upset about it for a while and it really made me question what I was doing with my life.  How could this happen to such a great man?  Even with limited personal contact outside of class, Father Anderson was instrumental in shaping my life.  Why didn't I thank him for any of the things he did for me and others?  I should have done more.  I will never be as great of a person as he was.