January 2013

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart had many important lessons to teach, but to me one stood out from the others, as it is very relevant to modern times.  Okonkwo's inability to respond effectively to the changing world around him led to his downfall, as he had made his entire world revolve around being the greatest Igbo.  Not that he is to be blamed for this, but others were able to survive - many embraced Christianity, and even those who did not still appreciated some of the white man's practices; the trading post, for example.

The inability to change is something that has caused a lot of problems for humanity worldwide.  It can be seen in the revolutions in the Arab world, where rebel groups overthrew their conservative (usually dictatorial) governments, as the government was unwilling to give in to change.  It can also be seen in our own government, where the two parties stand by their ideologies no matter what, and nothing gets done as a result.  The fact that we continue to use fossil fuels without making major efforts to incorporate renewable fuels into our energy supply is also a sign of our inability to change.  Certainly, the incompetence of our government and its inability to update our infrastructure could lead to our downfall.
I think the use of a party system is a big mistake, and serves no use but to divide Americans on many important issues.  The labels of conservative or liberal are especially silly when applied to individual persons, as in order to truly be a liberal one must support all the liberal ideologies, and the same applies to conservatives.  One can be a democrat and be anti-abortion, or one can be a republican who supports gun control.  It would be much better if politicians were simply elected based on what they stood for, and if legislature were voted on based on what it would do, not because it was written by a republican or democrat.  Sooner or later, something is going to have to give.

11/30

I found the ideas of Existensionalism interesting.  I learned about it in AP European history my sophomore year, along with Romanticism and several other philosophical points of view.  The ideas and questions presented by existensionalism are timeless and transcend different cultures.  The questions themselves can be interpreted in many different ways, I specifically remember the questions "What are we waiting for?" and "Where are we headed?" as standing out.
People have different answers to these questions, and there are many correct answers.  For me, there are several interpretations for the first question: What am I waiting for to happen?  What are we, as humanity, waiting for?  Why are we slow to action and wanting our problems to be solved for us? 
Personally, I'm not waiting for anything - I'm focused on the present, and how I can use it to enjoy both the present and future.  I believe that most people sit around complaining about their problems, rather than taking action to solve them - this applies to most any problem in life.  People want to have things taken care of by others.
As for the other question, it can be viewed in several different ways.  It can be asking where we are headed as individuals - I am heading to college and to a job - or it can ask where we are headed as a species - to a bright or dismal future, depending on our actions to solve our problems now.  So perhaps if we continue waiting for changes to be made - saying "Oh, someone needs to improve our nation's infrastructure" instead of being that person who pushes the changes to be made, then the future of decay is ours.  But if we do what is necessary, we can push onwards and achieve things once thought impossible.

It could be said that Beowulf is the archetypal epic hero - he has no apparent flaws and possesses superhuman strength and endurance.  In addition to this, he is greatly concerned with honor and glory - it is for this he quests.  Rather than fight his monstrous opponents with the help of others, he chooses to fight them alone, as his pride would be too injured were he to accept their aid.  Though such an obsession with honor is frowned upon in today's society, in Beowulf's time it was accepted and understandable.  There were few written texts, and so one's history mainly lived on through story alone.  I don't think Beowulf should be looked down upon for his quest for honor - he had little as a child, and so is very concerned with earning a good name for himself.  In the modern day, such behavior would be described as childish, prideful, and shallow.  Beowulf's society was one that praised generosity, loyalty, and bravery.  Ours is one that praises generosity, loyalty, and modesty.  Again, though, Beowulf's actions would have been seen as heroic and completely understandable - his fighting Grendel and his mother alone is much more memorable than if he had fought with a team of warriors.  We praise Beowulf for his great generosity and loyalty towards his comrades and king, and criticize him for taking pride in his deeds.  Why should we criticize him for choosing to fight the dragon alone instead of with an army, when if he'd brought an army, many warriors would die?  Even so, he realizes and acknowledges his declining physical ability and brings a small group of warriors with him.  Beowulf should not be criticized for knowing his own limits and acting accordingly. 

9/26

I don't like Ayn Rand or her writing, but some of what she said in The Fountainhead reinforced my preexisting conception of the media.  Taking advantage of freedom of speech, the media has achieved immense power in the United States.  Among many other things, the media decides who is worthy of becoming president, the media decides what should be popular, and the media decides what most people think. 
The idea that the media determines who or what should be popular is seen in The Fountainhead where Ellsworth Toohey and his friends decide to make certain mediocre individuals very rich - simply by exerting their enormous influence over the public.  Most people would think the work of these individuals to be poor, but Toohey’s control over the press allows him to manipulate what others believe.
 This is very much present in today’s society, especially in presidential campaigns where various (supposedly impartial) news agencies introduce (but really endorse) candidates.  News agencies have the ability to raise candidates from obscurity to potential Presidents of the United States – take Barack Obama, for example, or Mitt Romney.  Nobody had really ever heard of these people or would consider them as seriously having a chance at the presidency.  But, through the power of the media, Obama and Romney have become the top contenders due to popularity within the media. 
Through the media, we have developed a two party system: a system of Republicans and Democrats who can’t agree on a thing, except that no third party should be allowed an important role in government.  Although freedom of speech is a much cherished right, the media is allowed to broadcast lies (Such as FOX News, which, incidentally, isn’t allowed a Canadian national branch because the Canadians have laws that prevent people from broadcasting lies as news) as news, which can distort people’s opinions regarding all sorts of matters.