Emerson an Thoreau quotes

Emerson

“Make the most of yourself, for that is all there is for you”

This aphorism written by Emerson is one that I understand clearly and agree with. It says that we can only play with the hand we've been dealt. We need to make the most of ourselves of our lives of our time. Our lives are our entirety, they are everything we have, and there is no evidence or person that can convince me otherwise. Our lives are made of time. Time in hours, days, and years. Time is the most important thing we have. It is what we do with the short time that we've been given that defines us. We are what we do and what we think. We have to make the most of our time because when it runs out…that’s it.

Thoreau

“Money is not required to buy one necessity of the soul”

I love this quote, probably because I hate money. I hate how unnatural it feels, how it controls and influences our lives and our happiness. I hate how people just accept that it has value when in reality it is just paper that someone told us was valuable. I hate how if I tore a dollar bill in half people might be puzzled surprised or even upset. But if I tore a regular piece of paper in half no one would think twice. I hate how many people have died for money, and how many people’s lives have fallen apart because of it. Our lives are so short and our planet is so insignificant that it just seems to be the utmost stupidity to allow something so false controls our entire being.

The "self"

The idea of the “self” is complex and mysterious and can provoke long periods of rumination that ultimately render no significant distinctions or answers.

                Having said that, I’m going to discuss it anyway.

Does the “self” exist? Do we have independent and original thoughts? Or is everything we desire and want just a product of where we were raised and how we were taught? If I was born in another country with different parents would I be the same? This is simply and unanswerable question. There is no way for me to know the answer to this question because I cannot test it. I would like to believe that I would still value the same things if I was raised in a different environment, but that may not be true. I could be a completely different person. Maybe all people are the same at first, only to have their personal experiences mold them into who they become. Maybe everything we believe and value is just a result of what we hear and see, maybe we can’t develop our own beliefs or even our own morals. Who tells us what is right and what is wrong? If someone does something that we perceive to be wrong but they perceive to be right, then how can my word be taken as more than another? The development of the idea of the self  has been around since the beginning of humanity so some ideas must be original, right? Or are we all just rehashes of things already said? We try to convince ourselves that were special but in reality all of our ideas come from somewhere else. Everything we believe has been said before; but that doesn't mean that they were taught to us. We can come to similar conclusions through very dissimilar paths. I like to believe that each of us is unique in our own way; the problem is that many people have lost their ideas of the “self”. Too many people have fallen into conformity without giving it any personal thought. Too many people believe things simply because that’s what they've been told, not because they have evidence through their own experiences.

Ayn Rand and Environmentalism

I don’t think I agree with what Rand says. She tries to sell environmentalism as putting the needs or “rights” of things like land, over the rights of people. I don’t really think that this is true. Berliner argues that environmentalism is a way of thinking that would rather lose the lives of people than trees, he makes it out that environmentalism is anti-man. I think this is an oversimplified perspective on the issue. It claims that everything we do to the earth is necessary for the betterment of man and it insinuates that environmentalism is a form of self- sacrifice.

                I do not believe this to be true. I think that environmentalism is for the betterment of man and the general preservation of man as well. Earth is the only known planet that we have the capability to settle and found our society on. Without it there is no man. Therefore I think calling environmentalism “anti-man” is a very childish and reactionary statement. One that reminds me of a child who only wants to eat candy. It may be what he wants but he doesn’t know any better. If he only eats candy he will get diabetes. And die. Is not letting your child only eat candy “anti-child”? No, no it is not. 

The Spirit of man

“…the spirit of man will remain alive on this earth. It may sleep, but it will awaken. It may wear chains, but it will break through.”

The spirit of man is a complicated entity. This inner feeling of independence from others. This inner feeling that we must live for ourselves and ourselves alone. That we have to do something, find something. The spirit of man is a calling to ourselves by ourselves. The spirit of man is the belief that we should live to please ourselves not others. It is a belief that we should listen and create our own distinguished ideas and theories. Unfortunately this spirit is often corrupted by society. Society tries to teach us what it is that we want. Society trains us to accept things as they are told to us. Society tries to keep us in line by telling us that there is a wrong answer, that there is a wrong way to do something. Society tries to teach us what to think and how to define our self worth. Society tells us that certain desires are wrong, or selfish, or stupid. Society tries to make us judge ourselves by a universal set of standards, and then they say that if we don’t hold up to these standards then we are wrong.

But progress is inevitable. The only things that we are promised in this world are death and change. And if the changing of a society means something more than so be it. If change is synonymous with a new society or a rebirth of society than so be it. If this means that a society is too powerful, too restraining, or has too much influence on our thoughts and perspectives, than this society must die and make room for a new one. Because the spirit of man will not be removed from this earth. There may be periods or environments in history where man’s spirit is lulled to sleep by the brainwashing of a society but no spirit can sleep forever. Man’s spirit to live is an instinct and an intuition that we are all born with and it will not be removed from this earth. 

The first of several Ayn Rand/Anthem/Objectivism posts

I believe that the Ayn Rand quote is very true. That all of our, “our” meaning people in society, ambitions, desires, dreams, and wishes are “motivated by other men”. Most people are in complete denial that they don’t do what they want. The majority of people only do things that will make it easier to get through the day. No one knows what they truly want. The things that people say they want are merely what society tells them. People say that they want things like a good job that pays a large amount of money. But the question they never seem to ask is “why”? Why do they want these things, why do they believe that these things will make them happy?

                People work every day towards the idea of contentment. The idea of fewer worries, and idea that they perceive to be happiness. I hate the idea of being “content”. It sounds to me like settling. As if people just decided that this was the best they could do and then gave up on doing anything else.  They say that ignorance is bliss, but it is a very ignorant form of bliss. It is not true happiness. It is an ignorance that not only involves the denial of things you should be worried about but also a denial of your true self, of your own individual beliefs.

This ones about how past events affect a character in text

In Orwell’s 1984, Winston was affected by the past from a number of different perspectives. He was strongly influenced by his own personal past. Winston’s personal past was very unclear to him, his past was more of a culmination of blurred flashbacks and dreams. Despite not having a clear vision of his past, Winston had an innate feeling that things in society were not right. He felt as though he was living in a corrupted form of civilization, although he could not remember another time.

                Consequently, in the society in 1984 the past practically ceases to exist. Winston’s job is to rewrite the past. He goes back and changes news stories and predictions so that the government is eternally correct and all knowing. This leads Winston to question whether or not the past exists and whether or not it can be or has ever been rewritten. Winston begins to realize that Oceania and the Party is completely based on lies an enforced self-brainwashing known as “doublethink”. 

I think this post is from November 8, I believe it was a free response

Recently I finished reading Ivan Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”. “Fathers and Son’s” was an amazing book that tackled an array of ideas and conflicts. The philosophy of nihilism is observed through Bazarov, the books main character. Bazarov epitomizes the new generation’s way of thinking, he believes in only the physical sciences and what he can see and touch. He rejects all the old generations’ ideas of romanticism and writes them off as foolish and laughable. His bravado is intimidating to many while at the same time aspires others to admire him. The books main conflict comes when Bazarov falls in love. His love makes him feel like a fool and it causes him internal strife that clearly shows throughout the book.

                I find nihilism to be a very interesting philosophy. Nihilism is essentially the rejection of all principles; moral ethical religious etc. Nihilism believes that life has no greater meaning and no purpose. The belief that there is no point to life can be a liberating one. Once you accept that you have no real purpose for being here you are free to do as you please. Accepting that there is no point or significance to your life means that you have no greater purpose to aspire to, you can do nothing wrong because the lines between right and wrong begin to fade.

                I loved this book partially because I feel that I can understand the philosophy of nihilism. I don’t necessarily believe life has any point to it and enjoy that belief. However, I worry that much like Bazarov I could get that belief twisted and begin to think that it means things like love and art are useless. I think that was Bazarov’s biggest issue. I understand the logic and thought process that goes with physical sciences but I don’t believe that means all romantic ideas should be thrown aside.