After reading “Plato's Cave”, the first thing that popped in my head as far as how the story relates to an event in my life is when I came to the realization that life is all relative: there's no real point in living it, no one or no physical “higher being” that forces you to do such and such before you die, but that you're here on this planet, in this galaxy, living as a human being - by chance - and that you've got to figure out what you would like to do on this planet before you die. This conceptual view of mine probably began early on in my life when I was in either kindergarten or first grade and I started to notice that despite how connected I was with my peers, I could never always enjoy being around their company. Instead, I was more happy thinking about fantasy and the “what-ifs” that this world had to offer. I was distancing myself from others and began looking at myself as a point in time, thinking “OK, so I'm here in my classroom surrounded by other kids: who ARE they? What is their purpose on this earth? What IS this earth? Is this just an illusion? Am I dreaming, or is this somebody else's dream? What's the point of doing what we do?” I believe that in separating myself from others at the time I helped myself learn some perspective about living my life throughout my elementary and middle school years; the conclusion I came to was to live life to the fullest with those around me and enjoy as much as I can while I can.
When I entered high school, I believe that the whole concept of life for me began to sour a bit, as I was only able to enjoy few select moments while in that institution. It probably goes the same for everybody else also, but during those four years, I started questioning the whole concept of life again. Sure, I was doing academically well in school, but the social aspects of school and home were knocking at my door much harder than it was while I was growing up through elementary and middle school. The old conclusion of trying to “enjoy life to the fullest” was coming into conflict with the experience I was going through during those 4 years. Friends were either hard to come by or were not friends at all, pressures at home were mounting for what reason, I don't know, but it became increasingly difficult to talk to my parents about anything that was going on with me, and it was from these letdowns that trying to do my daily tasks became exhausting to do. It wasn't until I was nearing high school graduation that I began looking at a brighter side of life, thinking “Hey, once I get out of here I'll finally not be controlled by this godforsaken social combine!” ...I was half right, half wrong.
Have you ever heard of the song “High School Never Ends” by Bowling for Soup? It's about how all of the stupid, menial stuff that becomes glorified and publicized during high school shows up again on a much larger scale in TV shows, newspapers, and other savvy media dispensaries in the real world. It's the information that doesn't make a difference for issues in the long run, such as global poverty, the threat of an asteroid hitting this earth, or how we need to solve this social security problem we're gonna face in this country in the next 20 years. This type of information was EXACTLY what I ran into when I first came to this college 4 years ago, and I still notice it today but I don't let it get to me. It wasn't the only thing to bother me and dash my hopes of freedom when I first entered college: the second was social pressure. The pressure to conform. The pressure to think a certain way, to act a certain way, and to live a certain way. San Francisco is a PRIME example of one of those cities, and there are many times when I can't stand it. For as “open-minded” as it wants to be, if you don't agree with someone that has the same mind-frame of what's socially perceived of this city – to be accepting of everybody, despite race, religion, or sexual orientation; or that gasoline is the evil from which we need to save ourselves from - they call you dumb and ignore your point of view because they think THEY'RE right and YOU'RE wrong, and that's that. I bear with this more often than not, but it STILL gets to me how some people are so strong-headed with their convictions that they will NOT consider the other person's opinion, even if they were listening to the others point of view. And it is from this that I have used the conclusion of life is: it's all relative. Anybody can be right, anybody can be wrong; it's all in the hand of the one who wins.
(Note: Google word count limits prevented me from posting my response as one message, so here it is in two parts.)
ReplyDeleteFirst part:
-------------
Great rant through the end of that blog. On the Simpsons they called what you described as "P.C. Thuggery" and it's always, besides rubbing me the wrong way, struck me as both hypocritical and counter-productive. If someone is truly enlightened, compassionate, or simply open-minded, wouldn't it logically follow that they would not resort to being judgmental or opinionated, or arrogant or narcissistic?
Of course that's easier practiced than preached. It takes an extraordinary degree not just of self-awareness but discipline and concentration to treat people in an equitable way and handle or address issues, concerns and conflicts with a well-rounded, responsive mental framework and personal comportment. The thing about our beliefs is we hold them for a reason, and even if they're quote-unquote more "enlightened" than the ones we held when we were younger and less informed, the upshot of this is we're also more invested in them. I, for one, have been ashamed on a number of occasions for how I've responded to political, social, or even simple differences of taste. I've never been all that combative in person, but have resorted to name-calling, finger-pointing, and vilification more often than I care to admit in online forums, where the upside of being more bold to express one's beliefs and voice one's views is counter-balanced by the anonymity to say anything. (This in effect describes what Phil does in "Groundhog Day" when he finds out he doesn't have to face consequences.)
Anyway, besides responding to your comments, I think this train of thought relates to one of the main themes of your blog here, which I think had especially to do with how relating to others both causes and effects our own character and outlook. You called explored this relativity theory early in the blog as well, and I wonder what the full implications are of this sort of view not just of human nature, but of human interactions. I think I agree with many of your premises, as evidenced by my own questionable and highly suspect bouts with know-it-all-ism and PC thuggery. Yet at the same time, aren't other interpretations, conclusions, or dispositions possible, especially when it comes to how the people we interact with affect us?
Second part:
ReplyDelete-------------
In my own case, I'm a good three years into reforming from those ways. Honestly, I think that being in the trenches and at the front lines as a college instructor, so to speak, has played a great role in helping me see the light and be more open-minded and interactive with how I no longer argue but debate and try my best to no longer opine but instead interpret. From my own experiences I have to practice what I preach and put my money where my mouth is since I've been teaching English. I have always believed deeply in the lessons of critical thinking, being humane, and practicing not just civil discourse but open-minded and open-hearted human relations---- but these practices never became fully realized until I started on the hand listening to and on the other hand engaging all the perspectives I've heard and benefited from in my classrooms. It really impresses and humbles me, actually, to see semester after semester how much I stand to learn when I actually exercise these principles we’ve been discussing in class to their fullest.
And so I guess this would all boil down to a manner of relating. Though yes, much of *general* human interacting is relative and the mind has to form its own perspective and aspect, at the same I am day in and day out blown away by how much more sense everything makes and how much more in control I am of my emotions, thoughts, and purpose when these engage and incorporate more than a relativistic form or relating. I think I mentioned this idea in class once, Edward Said’s theory of “interdependence”, and how a responsive, receptive, and responsible form of relating to everyone and everything builds character and makes the whole more than the sum of its parts and the parts integrative as much with the infrastructure as with the whole.
Hmm. Following up on your blog, this line of reasoning makes coming up with an apropos movie recommendation more challenging, which is something I appreciate. “I Heart Huckabees” comes immediately to mind, especially in how it turns a contrast in its two major worldviews into a comparison between them. I actually like the end of “Almost Famous” for the same reason. From a completely opposite perspective, and perhaps the best movie of this group, the French masterpiece “La Haine” (“Hate”) very very very very carefully crafts a powerful message about interdependent approaches to human relations, only to tear all of them down in a very realistic way in its explosive shockingly tragic ending. Is it offering a worldview, or the consequence of not living up to that ideal? I guess that would be in the eye of the beholder. You may find this one the most challenging and the most rewarding of the bunch to work on. Excellent writing here Chris, I would greatly benefit from talking about it more with you, so let me know if you’d like to discuss movie choices during office hours.