Commonplace post 3

"True charity is when we give up ourselves instead of our material possessions" (Winstons Churchill). During class, the theme of charity has been part about both of the pieces we read, TSSWP and The Gift. This quote though, does not so much apply to TSSWP, but more to The Gift, where the central charachter gives a nondirected kidney donation. This really is taking this quote literally. But anyway, I'm not really sure about all this charity stuff. I mean I should be more charitable and all, but I'm just not a charitable guy. Or maybe I'm just lazy. Either way, this "true charity" must be very hard to give, because the truth is always harder than lies.

"This I believe" essays

I listened to the four essays: "Be Cool", "Just Like Pastrami", "The Tense Middle", and "A Duty to Family, Heritage, and Country". Although I could clearly see just what they believed, some of their points did not make sense. For example, in "The Tense Middle", the author believes that everything is good in moderation (much like the Buddhist belief of the middle path). But in his essay, he also believed that people are given choices, like in an anecdote he told about being sheltered by a Ukranian school teacher during the holocaust. He was given the choice A) to shelter them or B) to turn them in; but wait, that leaves no room for the middle! Unless he meant that we must make our own middle path, but that wasn't exactly the feeling I got from his essay. Overall, it was a slightly confusing essay, but maybe I just chose to listen to it because it kind of reaffirmed my own beliefs.

The first essay that I listened to, "Be Cool", had a very straight-forward and simple belief: that staying calm and collected, or otherwise "cool", is the key to living a happy and fulfilling life. It makes sense, but at the end, he said that being cool meant having a facade when talking to people, and not speaking what you think, rather being polite and respectful. I respect his opinion, but I believe being "cool" is being yourself. I believe being cool means being an unsupressed individual; you don't have to be "cool" with everyone you meet. I think his idea of staying relaxed at all times is being too "cool" (this reflects my belief in "the middle path"), but it is a respectable belief nonetheless.

The second essay, "Just Like Pastrami", was about a teacher's belief in marbling diffferent aspects of your life how you would pastrami meat. While at first I thought that his belief was similar to "The Tense Middle" essay, it did have its own unique points (besides relating life to pastrami). He said that life, like brisket is easy to layer, but it is through marbling we achieve the great flavor of life--just like pastrami. What this means to me is still unclear, but there is a certain aspect of his essay I do understand; you must always work harder to achieve your goals.

The final essay, "A Duty to Family, Heritage, and Country", was a very solemn one. The author was a 14 year old Chinese immigrant, who believed that the only reason she works hard at school is to pay back all the people who have helped her along the way. She believed that even though she wanted to do her own thing, she was being forced, not by her parents, heritage, or country, but by herself as a result of all of their beliefs. Yes, sometimes people, including myself do things out of obligation or duty. But the reason I find this essay solemn is because I almost pity this girl. Sure, she does sound more mature, and probably smarter than I am, but she seems to pity herself too. Self-pity is a very sad thing.

"Their Eyes Were Watching God"

Recently, I read a book titled "Ther Eyes Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston. It's an absolutely great book, and no matter your sex, race, or religious beliefs, I would say you should really give this book a try. In fact, since it was written during the years of the Harlem Rennaisance, many people view it as a black feminist book, but it speaks more to the whole of humanity. And although the title alludes to God, it is much more spiritualistic in nature than religious.

First and foremost, it is Janie Crawford's search for "life" and love; for independence and self-enlightening. Although this book is truly a tender love story at heart, I feel that the main characther's search for love is simply her personal way of discovering "life", and everybody's search for self-enlightenment takes them down a different dirt-beaten path. The definition of "life" will vary from person to person, and while Janies search spanned nearly forty years of her life, some people's journeys will take longer or shorter amounts of time. It is in this sense that the book finds its spritualistic nature. Here and again God will be alluded to, but the actual name only appears about two ore three times from cover to cover in the 193 page book, and the word or concept of God seems to be meant more as a wordly force or spirit that guides and taunts Janie simultaneously. Sometimes though, I do get a feeling that that is exactly what God does to people.

Referring again to my English class's two essential questions: What is our world like? and how should we live in it?, while reading this book, I have came to the realization that although it uses the pronoun "we", it should be asked in a much more personal form. Because although we all live in the same world, we all choose to live in it differently, and "should" is a highly subjective word.

Brainy!

Yesterday, I read the newest edition of Time Magazine. It was captivating really. According to the magazine's front page article involving the human brain and consciousness; what they know, and what will probably take many many more years to figure out. The line that seperates different parts of the brain has become very blurry, and now researchers are starting to ask the "hard questions", like why do we think green when we see green? Or "explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation" (Jan 19 2007, Time).

Now, I'm not like a huge science geek philosopher kind of guy, so I don't really know too much about what I'm talking about, but I think it's interesting as hell trying to understand the thing that allows us to understand. A question that arose from this article was "how does my brain make me, 'me'"? According to researchers, that's actually a relatively simple question; it's because my brain is me. And although people tend to believe that their conscience is like one man in a room in front of dozens of monitors that controlls our thoughts and movements, that is also untrue. In our brain, events compete for attention until one outshoots the others and the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact, giving the impression that a single self was in charge all along.

That's pretty much the only stuff I could vaguely understand from the seven page article, and I just find this stuff highly facinating as hell. It truly takes understanding oneself to the most extreme scientific levels imagineable.

TSSTWP questions and 4 generations video response

After reading and briefly discussing "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" (TSSTWP for short), there were quite a bunch of questions I thought of. However, they could be condensed into these two simplified questions. They are pretty much the same though. It is a variation of the two essential questions we are asking ourselves in our English class (What kind of world is this? And how should we live in it?). If TSSTWP is about our moral obligation as human beings to donate large sums of money to overseas charity organizations, then maybe using Singer's two scenarios as a basis for this question we can start asking ourselves how does living in this world affect others? Should we try to affect others in this world?

Singer threw in those two scenarios about Dora the retired school teacher and Bob the Bugatti man to create parallel situations between our potential relationship with people who need overseas aid. In a nutshell, behind Singer's overly demanding and condescending tone of voice, what he really seems to want is peoples care and support for others who need it direly. I mean just imagine, $200 can almost safely guide a child for the four most vulnerable years of their life. You can be a guardian angel. You can provide care and support. You can affect this child's life in ways that you will not be able to phatom (Am I being overly dramatic? I hope not). However the means that a person might go around influencing other people's lives, whether by running them over by a train (pray you don't), or sending them overseas aid, we have the potential to effect people we don't even know more than we think. I could be really hippy-dippy and say "we're all connected…dude" (Am I being too informal? I hope not x2); but I digress.

Now, getting to the video, it definitely relates to TSSTWP and their shared topics of charity and all. So how does it relate to my personal essential question? Well, it just goes to show how seemingly small contributions can make a world of difference to some. I mean really, my iPod cost about $250. Oh! About the money I need to buy a water buffalo in China! What I'm saying takes on somewhat of a Singer standpoint; that's $250 that isn't being sent overseas, and that's another child dying at the age of two. Maybe by living, other people are dying.

Taking the totally opposite view that my second question posed: should we be trying to affect other people in this world? or shall we "Let it Be" as sang by John Lennon? Well I mean, who are we to be walking around giving free water buffalos away. At the very least we probably shouldn't be going around looking for more Bobs to run over little kids with trains. But anyway, as far as duty goes, we aren't obligated to help anyone according to the U.S. constitution. But Singer is right to a certain extent that we have the means and capable of the moral integrity by which to help others.

But the point is that whether you are more in the unsuspecting Dora's scenario or Bugatti Bob's intentional killing of a child, all of our actions, or lack thereof, have an effect on the world. In this we find truth to the law of action-reaction in life, and what brings light to Singer's main point; that by doing nothing we are really hurting people the most.

Obviously it is the people that we have close relationships with that we affect first and foremost: namely our friends and family. These are people that we live with, laugh with, and love, and the value of the effect our lives have on each other cannot be weighed or measured using money or other physical means. I know that my family, friends, and teachers helped to shape my charachter into the person I am now, the subtleties of which cannot be discussed without a great deal of tedious self-reflection. However, I am even more unsure of the subtle ways I might effect other people. This question is essential to me personally, because I feel that a person should have an idea of what their individual life might mean to the world.

"The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer is a very thought provoking essay analyzing human attitude and behavior towards giving overseas aid to people in need. With a combination of scenarios with morallity issues, hard facts, and playing on peoples' guilt, Singer's essay in a nutshell tells us that we should donate lots and lots of money overseas because a) it is the morally sound thing to do, and b) we can. While I do not completely agree with all of his points, it is agreeable that Singer has created a very effective essay.

The first thing Singer does is provide morally conflicting scenarios that put all Americans in the same boat; the boat of people unable or unwilling to donate at least $200 to overseas aid. By providing these two scenarios of Dora the retired school teacher and Bob and his Bugatti, Singer effectively establishes the fact "that it is also very wrong not to send money to …[an] organizations" (2), and in fact, he says that it is "gravely wrong" (2) for those of us not sending overseas aid. Reading this essay made me feel like a very guilty man.

I am not in agreement with the second half of Singer's essay that says we should not give $200, not $1,000, not 10,000, but tens of thousands of dollars because we can. I'll agree with the fact that if $200 dollars is all a person needs to donate to save a child, that it is a relatively small hole in most peoples' wallets. He says we should all feel as morally responsible as Bob should feel for killing the child on the railroad tracks because we are all "killing" little kids by not donating money. But the honest to goodness truth is that I don't. For the most part I sleep happily at night, keeping these kinds of things out of my dreams. And rather than saving people we hardly know, isn't our obligation as American citizens "the puruit of happiness"? This line of thought may seem cruel and despicable, the reality of it. Many people sleep happily at night, and they would probably feel a little less happy knowing that they are a few ten thousand dollars poorer. In this sense I agree that "that would be taking fairness too far" (3).