These are just some things I've deduced. Perhaps they're all wrong. Perhaps they're all right. But I have nothing better to do at the moment. Actually, I do-AP Bio, English, Gov't., Math, Latin III and AP Psych-but that's what later is for. Anyway. These might spark conversation. Might not. Doesn't really matter. Because I'm posting them.
Years. Every year the year changes and people make a big deal out of it. Why? All it is the starting of a New Year, which, in actuality, is a continuation of the year before that. It combines a cycle with moving forward-which is contradictory in a sense. I dunno. It just doesn't make sense to me why people make a big deal of it. Woo-hoo. It's '06..big deal. All those people who make life-altering New Year's resolutions..why did they need to wait 'till New Year to make them? They need an excuse? The fact that they want it isn't enough?
I've also deduced that years are really noting more than a conceptual luxury. What's the point of having lived 100 years if you've truly never lived a day, shelled up in your little bubble, your goal in life is to live to be 100 years? You miss out on life. One who dies at 33 but achieved everything they wanted to, not passing up a moment of that, has lived more than that 100 year old hooked up to an oxygen machine, breathing purified air to lengthen their life span. Life isn't measured by years.
Names are nothing more than a string of letters chained together that really mean absolutely nothing. But these strings inspire or cue a recollection of someone, something; an idea. It is these that we hold dear. And names represent these.
Some people say its the effort that counts. You may have lost the game but you tried hard. But in truthfulness, what does your effort matter at all if you don't win? I know that may seem kind of harsh, but teaching people that 'It's ok if you don't win, as long as you try hard', some stop playing to win (or whatever else in the facet of life) or the say the play to have fun or what have you. Play to win. Stop preaching mediocrity. If you can reach an upper echelon, why stop reaching?
In middle school, and even in high school, they give out awards or what have you for getting honor roll. This should be discontinued. Shouldn't good grades be expected? Its the same thing with people getting money for good report cards. Shouldn't the motivation be intrinsic? Not for money. Stop praising when somebody does what should be expected. Its like praising a horse for eating an apple when he had already had his mouth around it. Except much, much worse. Whats worse is the fact that this praises mediocrity..which should be stopped.
I know that some of you will disagree. But maybe some of you will agree. Maybe I'm just trying to stir up conversation and debate. Maybe I'm just stating stuff that I shouldn't and I should just leave well enough alone and I'll just screw everything up by posting this. It won't be the first time for incidents like that. But I'm posting it.
Also, if you do comment, don't make them personal attacks. Because all that shows is that you can't come up with a valid arguing point or, if you do have a valid arguing point, you find it easier to insult the others than to argue your point. Which may be true. But it also shows a total lack of respect for their arguing points, and a total lack of respect for them. On top of all that, you look like a blasted fool.
Ok. I'm done now. This post is probably way too long. Oh well. Deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
thats a lot of stuff you wrote, im not sure what it says cause i dont feel like reading it all.
I'm not going to debate at all. I completely agree with everything you said.
I conquer. (aka concur)
Although I don't think it matters much how long or how much one lives, only what they accomplish with their time. Having said that, longer life is obviously better, it's more time to do important things/things one wants to do. I am certain that I will not have accomplished everything I want by the time I'm 33.
And what's in a name? If you called a rose a stinkflower or something with a similar meaning, we'd be expecting a bad smell, and so be tricked into thinking it smelled bad. Names are important.
First of all, Colin, there is something else of importance in society besides practicality. Its called tradition. Tradition is what feeds the masses. People love tradition and they always will, it gives meaning to their lives.
For this reason the New Year is important. People love being able to feel as if pledging to do something differently at the beginning of the year will actually make a difference in whether or not they accomplish it. I would, however, like to note that every moment in time begins a new year. The current date for the new year, Jan. 1st, is completely arbitrary. It could be July 13th, or October 29th, it doesn't matter.
I agree with the life concept. Like the quote, "All men will die, but some men will never truly live."
Also, names are extremely important. They are what we base our entire society on. If we didn't have names to attach to individuals we would never be able to recognize one from each other.
As far as your little "effort" comment, I disagree with that. But not because I like making feel better about losing. I disagree because I know what people really mean when they say "its the effort that counts." They simply mean that if you tried your hardest, then there is nothing of which to be ashamed. After all, you could try no harder, right? The thing is, people are never capable of trying their hardest, they could always go a step farther, but it takes will power to do that.
"Except much, much worse. Whats worse is the fact that this praises mediocrity..which should be stopped." ?????? First of all, getting honor roll is far from mediocrity. Praising someone for it is not a useless task. Not everyone is motivated to strive for their best. I agree with you that they should be, but the point is they aren't That's why extra incentives are offered; some people need a little extra boost to achieve something nearer to their potential.
Some interesting concepts you've got there. I'm not sure I really agree with what I've agreed, or disagree with what I've disagreed, but some of your arguments stirred something inside me, so I wrote what I thought. Thanks.
But what is truly the point of tradition? There really is none. And it really doesn't affect my standing. The people, in general, are known for being ignorant. But there is still no real point.
Names aren't that important. Its the idea they inspire. I don't tell you and Jake apart by your names, but what comes to mind when I think of your names. For instance, I know (as do all of us Chancellor guys) more than one David. But the fact that they have the same name doesn't mean that they are the same person. Two very different images when i think of them.
I didn't say there was shame in losing if you try your hardest. But people who act like they aren't dissappointed in losing. Why not?! One should want to win, to be the best. It all comes down to one thing, I believe-what standards you hold yourself to.
And heres the main thing I have trouble with. Why do people get rewarded when they do what they are expected to do? Especially more than they deserve. And there is always an extra echelon one can aspire to, but by praising whatever action, people feel satisfied at whatever level of life they are. They shouldn't. It's rewarding them for mediocrity, for them not trying to reach their highest.
And, of course. I set out to spur thought, raise some debate, and whatever else may come from this. Because these things matter. Even though they may not to seem all that important. And chances are, whether you like it or not, they'll be more in the future.
Tradition is everything. Tradition is the very fabric of human existence (I know I seem to be exaggerated there).
Students are praised for honor roll because it is not expected of them. A's and B's may be expected of people in CGS, but on the whole they are not. Children need motivation, many of us wouldn't even be in school if it wasn't required (as your good friend Carol Ann pointed out in Gov't class).
Very exaggerated.
And honor roll should be expected. Why aren't they? They should be.
No, Honor Roll should not, and is not, expected.
Why not? It should be expected of all those that can achieve it. And just about everyone can achieve it. But no, we've let the human race under achieve so much, allowing ourselves to be carried by those better than us, that its expected for high schoolers to not try, to get bad grades. What happened to make us change our expectations? Why did they go down? They never should. As knowledge increases, so should expectations; but the opposite has happened, because the strong, the better have been carrying everyone else. And maybe it would be better if they just ducked out and let us wallow in our own mistakes and sheer stupidity. Maybe mankind could finally fix itself. But it may already be beyond that.
Expectations have not decreased, they've simply changed. The whole world has changed, the average student now learns so much more than the kids did one hundred years ago.
And, Colin, the strong lead the weak, thats a fact of life. Its always been like that and it always will. Its simple human nature.
They've changed for the worse. They've gone down.
And there is a difference between leading and between carrying.
Some people like to be carried. Its how they are. They prefer to do little work.
Then what responsibility do the strong have for them? Why do they have to carry them? The weak become parasitic. And shouldn't be carried.
We have no personal responsibility. Its not the feeling of being responsible for someone weaker than oneself that drives one to carry those that are weaker. Its the authority (power, one might say) that comes along with it. Some people like to be counted on, like to be the ones carrying, not being carried. This compliments nicely with those that like to be carried.
Its not a case of parasitism; its mutualism.
Fair enough.
..but then some those are the ones slowly ruining mankind. When most depend on few, the most degrade. Its as one who rides in a wheel chair for an extended amount of time. Their legs waste away to skin and bone. This is what happens when people fail to think, fail to try, because they know their safe, because the strong will save them. Perhaps the strong, for the good of mankind, have the responsibility to drop their responsibilities. To let the weak rehab and become stronger.
And is it not parasitism, when the weak cling to the strong, and not only hitch a ride, but claim the strongs' ideas and accomplishments as their own? How exactly does that help the strong?
You mentioned nothing about the weak claiming the ideas of the strong for themselves. I simply said that if the strong want to carry, and the weak want to be carried, that would be a perfect case for mutualism.
Would be. If it ocurred. But face the facts; it usually isn't like that. Thus it isn't mutualism.
Parasitism.
It is like that; you need to face the facts. The strong love to lead. They love to be the ones in power. Just like the weak love to be carried.
And give me one example of the weak trying to steal an idea of the strong.
The strong ones aren't always the one in power. And I do face the facts; it isn't like that.
It happens all the time. Take a group project. One or two may do all the work, and get an A as they deserve. The others do next to nothing and still get an A. They aren't penalized, and they can claim the project as their own too.
You know what. Read The Fountainhead. See who's strong and who's weak. See how it works out. Because often times it works that way in the real world too.
Don't bring fiction literature into a real life argument. That destroys your entire point.
I'm looking for worldly examples. Not some little classroom example about some students not doing their work. In the real world give me an example of the weak taking credit from the strong.
And by the way, the strong are always in power. Thats what makes them the strong. Those in power are stronger.
It doesn't. Especially if it models real life situation.
You'd agree, I think, that it was Apple, not Microsoft, that first came up with the idea of Windows-or an idea similar. But who made it huge and claimed it as their own? Microsoft.
Or Al Gore saying he created the internet.
It happens every day. The ones in power may wield more power, but that does not mean that they are stronger, in the sense in which we, well, I, am talking. If you are talking of the power they wield; well, then, yes, those in power are stronger. If you are talking of individuals, that is not always true.
And for us, school is the real world.
For us, school is the real world, for the real world, its not even close. School is nothing like the real world.
Microsoft stole Apple's idea? That may be true, but I think that proves something; Apple may be smarter, but in the end Microsoft was stronger. They took the idea and ran with it. They were able to make it better, market it better, and sell it better. Microsoft, not Apple, was the stronger of the two.
Regardless; for us, school is the real world.
It is evident, to me, that we are talking of two different aspects of the word strong. From your point of view, yes, microsoft was stronger. By my meaning of the word stronger, they are not. They did not have the ingenuity to come up with it, but the arrogance to claim they did. It wasn't their idea; they aren't the stronger of the two-regarding that aspect.
What is your definition of "stronger" anyway? I understand what you're saying, but you're not talking about strength or power, rather ingenuity or potential. Perhaps worth or value would also be better words. Those in power are usually not the best, or the weak, just those who can best take advantage of the system and are in a position to do so. So don't use words like stronger when the way most people would define it is different from how you're using it.
Back to the topic of the strong (using your definition) having to carry the weak, in most cases I don't think its parisitic of the weak to be carried by the strong, because as Kevin said, it is usually mutualism. The weak, ignorant masses, even though not as skilled, can be very usefull to the strong, without them there could be no civilization, after all, a society of all "Alphas" could not endure long.
For example, if someone creates some software better than Windows, they can have some right to the profits, but isn't it good enough that they improved mankind (and therefore themselves) in some way? If they keep it for their personal use only it won't be very useful, if there was only one computer there would be no internet and no further improvements by others. They can still get profits from a new invention, but to claim everything that is a result of their invention is greedy and unjust. Without the weak who help in mass producing the new product, there can be no profit and no advancement at all. I think it is enough that the weak can be called upon to help the strong do something that they would not otherwise have been able to do. Its not like the strong actually have any burden in "carrying" the weak, the only problem I've heard here is that the strong can't keep the profits and rights of something they thought of but didn't actually produce themselves, and they shouldn't be able to.
i have to agree with john, here.
If you understand what I'm saying, then you know what I mean by strong. And do not call my definition wrong; there are many different definitions of strong, we all just happen to be thinking in terms of different ones.
And the strong don't rely on the weak. Ever. The weak need the strong, not vice versa. The strong need other strong people to satisfy their needs-strong farmers, strong electricity produces, strong transportation people. A society of strong people, using my definition, would be able to, given the natural resources, self-sustain.
The strong do rely on the weak. You're just too far into you're argument (not too mention too proud) to admit it.
Colin, are you saying that you've never relied on a "weak" person in your life? No, the strong do need the weak, a society of all strong people would not work. Farmers and other menial laborers are not strong, not in the sense that you were using before. Strong people will not take these jobs, and even if they do, there simply won't be enough of them to make any difference. A society which has weak people too is better than a society with all strong people. The strong should do things that only they can do, the rest can be left for the weak to do.
No, Kevin, they don't. And pride has nothing to do with this.
Not once have I said I was one of the strong ones. Not once have I said that any of us are. I'm talking about those very rare people now a-days.
And farmers can't be strong? Those that find new ways to more effectively grow crops, to grow them bigger, better? Those that become so much more efficient? Those that create the machines that cut the man labor down to almost none? Seem pretty strong to me. They don't need the weak. The weak need the strong; not vice versa.
Most of the strong, those few that are left, can figure out how to get enough food to survive, while still thriving. They don't need the weak.
then the only thing we can be led to believe is this: that everyone is strong. Apple was stronger to have the idea, microsft smarter to sell it. Farmers are stronger than brain surgeons because they can improve the world, brain surgeons are stronger than farmers because they know how our brains function and stay healthy. It all comes down to the same thing Colin- mediocraty. None of us is exceptional if none of us is weak. And it seems that according to you we all are.
I make it seem that we are all exceptional?
If so, my apologies. I'm trying to imply the near exact opposite.
There are few that are strong anymore. Because they don't have to be. I'm not talking jobs here. I'm talking about the people themselves. Its about the person, how they are, not the position they hold in society. For instance, those that accept the truth and don't try and change it and accept it and don't deny it are strong. Those that deceive themselves and deny the truth because they don't want it to be true-they, they are the weak ones. Those that don't even try to help themselves are weak. Those that just allow the strong to carry them, not even reaching out for a moment, are the weak.
Everyone isn't strong. I wish it were so, but its not.
Ok, Colin, so if you aren't strong, then you're one of the weak people who you hate? And as for the farmers being strong, it is possible, but usually farmers aren't the ones who make machines for farming, they don't create the next generation of genitically engineered super plants, they just operate the machines and plant, grow, and pick the food.
You're thinking of an ideal world, one which doesn't exist. Every person on this planet has depended on those who you would call the weak (if you actually do call anyone weak) and there is no way to avoid that. If they wanted to, a lot of strong people could be self sufficient, growing their own food, living alone in the wilderness somewhere. However, that's not something many people would want to do. The weak, working together can make vast civilizations, why not take advantage of what has been created? It seems to me that someone who foolishly rejects the help of the weak is also weak.
Oh, and another thing, I'd like a definition of "strong" as you are using it here, and some examples of people who are "strong" and others who aren't. (and don't just use that same industrialist/lazy bum example that Ayn Rand uses, those aren't very realistic, it's hard to relate that to the real world)
Depending on your definition, what's so good about being "strong?"
John, is it so far-fetched that I be one of those weak that I so detest?
John, are you implying that those that invented them, the strong ones couldn't be farmers. They could. I didn't say all farmers were strong. A few, John. A very select few. Not that hard to grasp.
And why doesn't exist?
Maybe they should. And when the weak drag them down, why not. Get rid of them.
You know exactly what I mean John. You know that I cannot define it with words.
Either way, the world is screwed.
Not if you are emo... I think that emoism might be very very similar to objectivism.
Associating with and relying on weak people in no way makes one weaker, as I said before, it would be foolish to refuse their help. (using the non-objectivist definition of weak)
Are you saying that "Strong" only has to do with the person's beliefs and personality, not their abilities? So, it means someone who is completely independent, will not accept anything as fact unless they can prove it themselves, and they will not give something away after making it, even if its of no use to themselves, since the other person ought to be able to make it themselves.
That seems to me to be true to the objectivist philosophy, but there's got to be some measure of ability there too, but I'm not sure how you would measure that, however, I can probably figure out that, and a great many other things depending on the answer to this question, which YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT INTO WORDS: What is a "strong" person's ultimate goal in life?
Colin, the English language is extensive enough to describe nearly anything you wish. You can't put it into words because you don't know any examples.
It's become obvious to me that you consider yourself one of the weak. The weak, which you described as refusing to accept to truth. By that definition you would be weak, because you won't accept the truth no matter how many people try to convey it to you.
You wallow around in your own little world trying to shut out the real world. And it seems to me that you've adopted this extremely pessimistic outlook on life and you refuse to let go of it.
No matter what anyone says, you don't listen. You say its because you don't care what they say; that you will keep your own opinions and it doesn't make a difference for us to try to change yours.
Well then why do you try to change ours? Why did you post this topic on the blog in the first place? Why? You were obviously trying to change our opinion. And don't give me some crap about you just expressing your opinion, without the hope of converting others to it.
No John. Emo and objectivist are not remotely similar.
And you're right. The strong won't give away what they've maken. They'll trade it for something valuable to them.
John, you know what very well I mean by strong. It's their personality, their ability, their recognition of the truth, the way they use their ability, their living for themselves.
The goal is to live for themselves. Live, strive for their own happiness.
Kevin, there are, in fact, different levels of strength. It is not and either/or situation-it is a continuum. Surely even you aren't dumb enough to not know that. And I'm not exactly convince-and you never will convince me-that what you say is the truth. I don't think it is. And you aren't exactly known for your honesty.
And now you've made this into a personal matter. Don't tell me how I am. You don't know half as much about me as you like to think you do.
I posted this to see some people's reactions. Who agreed, who didn't. More for some people's reactions than others. I knew John would argue, based on his beliefs. And I knew you would argue, seeing as you argue on nearly every post of mine, if for no other reason than to play devil's advocate. So I think that we've all learned to take whatever you say with a grain of salt. When you argue against everything, for the sake of argument, one's respect for you, and your 'opinions', drops rather quickly.
Screw you.
Yes, that is what I expected.
Yes, that's good. You're so smart, Colin. You could expect anything, couldn't you?
I guess that's because you're so much better than everyone isn't it? That's how you know so much about life and strength.
I'm flattered that you think I'm smart, Kevin. And, why, yes, I could expect anything, but I typically just expect what I think is probable.
I never claimed, anywhere in this arguement, to be better than anyone. I just argue what I believe with the conviction that I am right, even if I am wrong. Just as you do. Except that you chose to insult me as opposed to arguing the points. And you know, if you want to take that path, go ahead. Makes no real difference; just the fact that respect for ones argument tends to drop. But I've said that before.
But hey, what does it matter? If you'd rather just attack me, go right ahead. No one's stopping you.
If I may quote you:
"And you [Kevin] aren't exactly known for your honesty."
"So I think that we've all learned to take whatever you [Kevin] say with a grain of salt."
Who's insulting whom now? I never once insulted you. I didn't turn this into a personal matter; you did. I told you the way I view your personality. To the outside world, you do seem to not care what other people think or say; especially considering you've said you don't care before.
Oh, and also: "You [Kevin] don't know half as much about me as you like to think you do."
Telling me what I think, now are you? I do believe I know you twice as well as I'd like too.
I was telling you how you are perceived by the outside (real) world. You are telling me what I think and like.
Are those really insults? If you choose to take them as such, go right ahead. They really weren't, but you'll do what you will.
I never claimed to have taken those as insults. And did you exactly clarify that those were your views? Besides the "It has become obvious to me.." bit, which I see as pertaining to only that paragraph and does not exactly clarify it anyway.
In your earlier comment, you did not say "You seem.." you said, "You are.." or "You do.." and others of the sort. There is just a bit of a difference.
And you are free to believe that you know me twice as well as you like. But I still think that you don't know me half as well as you like to think you do. The reason I did not put an "I think" in the orginal comment is due to the fact that I see it as truth, and seeing as you can't really disprove it, it isn't needed. And thats not so much telling you what you think as opposed to what you know.
Were you telling me that? Did you make it clear? Who are you to say how everybody in this 'real' world views me? I somehow doubt everyone holds the exact same opinion of me. And did you ever stop to think that there are different definitions of the 'real' world to different people?
I haven't told you what you think or like. I have no idea how you draw that conclusion.
But, do what you will.
I didn't put "It is obvious to me..." at the beginning of the previous paragraphs for the same reason you excluded it from any of yours. I view it as the truth.
"If you'd [Kevin would] rather just attack me, go right ahead."
That would be interpreted by the real world as another way of saying: "If you'd rather just insult me, go right ahead." Especially considering that you and everyone else knows I wasn't physically attacking you on the blog.
There is only one real world. If you don't see it the way it is, then you're wrong; I'm sorry. I'm not saying I do see it correctly, but I'm damn sure I know a lot more about it than you think you do.
If you're thinking that I'm an idiot, and I only wished I knew anything about the real world and you know a lot more about it than me, then don't say it; for I already know you're thinking it.
Of course you'd be thinking it, right? You're better than everyone you know, aren't you? You don't have to say it, you've said it tons of times before. And don't try to say you haven't; you've said it casually to me many many times.
Do you view it as an objective truth? There is a difference, as I'm sure you know.
Kevin, you know, or at least I hope you know, that attacking and insulting are not synonymous. Similar? Yes; but most certainly not the same.
Well, obviously, there is only one real world. However, the only way to find the real real world would be to view it objectively. But, seeing as humans, our ability to do as such, at least at this point, is, most likely, not great. Everybody sees the real world through their own perspective. Thus, one could argue that there does indeed exist more than one real world, depending on the person. And how, exactly, are you so sure?
I think this objective real world needs to be defined.
...I'm not thinking that you're an idiot. I still hold your opinion in and among the highest regard.
See-this last paragraph here is what I mean by attacking. It's not exactly insulting, but attacking nonetheless. And, perhaps I've said it, but have I said it sincerely, and pertaining to everybody, and pertaining to everything? If so, I want a specific recollection.
I do not think I'm better than everyone. In fact, if you perhaps knew me better, or perhaps just because it didn't fit well into the argument, I'm almost the opposite.
We may not be able to think objectively, but we can come close. Therefore most peoples' views of the real world are somewhat similar in make up.
I don't know if we really can come that close. We may think we do, only to fail miserably.
.
. . I don't think that the views are necessarily all that similar. To some, the real world might be the cut-throat business world. To others, it might be the povery-stricken world of Africa that they must adapt to.
Of course, I'm assuming you mean people from our society. Which kind of throws the whole Africa thing out the window. But I don't think that many in our society can come that close to thinking objectively, despite the fact that versions of the real world may be strikingly similar. I think that is the only 'real' world they have ever known, and is not the product of objective thinking.
The principles of the real world remain the same, whether you live in Africa or America. It's still all about competetion.
And I was talking about people under similar circumstances. Those people are the ones who would develop similar and somewhat consistent views of the real world.
Ok, I see what you're saying about competition. But not necessarily on the individual level.
And yes, people in similar situations will usually develop similar visions of the real world; but that does not equal them viewing the world objectively (though I realize that you never said it did).
Post a Comment