I wasn't sure I was going to write this post at first, but after noticing a comment by Navya & a few other events, it was pretty much fate (dramatic? but of course).
I was sitting in my hotel room this weekend, I was downtown for a Model UN conference in Chicago, when The Dark Knight came on the t.v. Can you believe two/three of my roommates haven't seen it? Shame on them (I even hope they're reading this right now to be able to fully appreciate the shame). Well, this caused me some concern as I considered who else might not have seen the film.
The twist is I chose two movies that are all fairly well known. What you might not have considered though, is the philosophical allusions in them. (So keep reading even if you have seen these movies before!)
Friedrich Nietzsche is the particular French philosopher I had in mind. In the most simplified terms, he argues one should embrace the status quo. Don't try to change your life because you're afraid of pain. You will only continue to cut out from your life the things you love, and then what is the point of living? You may be more familiar with the phrase 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger?'
Fight Club is one of my favorite movies (hopefully this doesn't mean I'm breaking the first rule of Fight Club!) Every time I re-watch it there's something I didn't notice the first time. It most obviously includes the Nitzschean philosophy in my opinion, with not only the embracing of pain, but the actually search for it. My favorite scene included one of the main protagonists holding a gun to a stranger's head. He did it, because for that stranger, breakfast the next morning will never taste better.
The Dark Knight's plot line was all based on descending into chaos.
You are on a boat with an explosive. The only way for you to survive is to blow up another boat with passengers who have the remote to your bomb.
Do you do it?
Monday, February 7, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Obama's State of the Union Address
When the State of the Union comes around, the nation (perhaps the world) listens. However, this blog, may I remind you, is about not taking things for face value.
So what do you think - is there something more to what Obama says in the speech? What about what he doesn't?
It was quite clear to anyone (actually) listening that foreign policy wasn't a huge focus. Of course, with approximately 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, it would be impossible for Obama to get away with not mentioning the war at all. But did anyone else notice he made sure to mention the bare minimum? He did not address what military strategy we currently have - perhaps its because the counterinsurgency (COIN) mission is failing? Instead, he talks vaguely about our end goal to extinguish the al Qaeda threat and prevent Taliban takeover. I equate this to saying we're going to stop nuclear war, and we're getting closer to stopping nuclear war, without explaining how. Lack of details highlighted a lack of clear focus in Afghanistan in my opinion. (If the debacle over what strategy we should employ in Afghanistan interests you, post in the comments and I'll redirect you to some very compelling articles).
All things said, Obama glossed over some critical issues to avoid talking about a losing war. There are other examples, such as Obama's lack of specific policy on immigration. He did not mention the Dream Act once. This may be better considering the Tuscon shootings - one policy that wasn't even the most popular won't be a solution at this point. Certainly, whether its good or not, it at least showed how Obama does not have any specific legislation planned for the near future.
I'll stop here as to not overwhelm you, but please post in the comments things you noticed that weren't entirely explicit/intentional in his speech. I'll be sure to respond. :]
Click here for a transcript of the speech provided by NPR.
Click here for a video of the speech provided by Youtube.
So what do you think - is there something more to what Obama says in the speech? What about what he doesn't?
It was quite clear to anyone (actually) listening that foreign policy wasn't a huge focus. Of course, with approximately 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, it would be impossible for Obama to get away with not mentioning the war at all. But did anyone else notice he made sure to mention the bare minimum? He did not address what military strategy we currently have - perhaps its because the counterinsurgency (COIN) mission is failing? Instead, he talks vaguely about our end goal to extinguish the al Qaeda threat and prevent Taliban takeover. I equate this to saying we're going to stop nuclear war, and we're getting closer to stopping nuclear war, without explaining how. Lack of details highlighted a lack of clear focus in Afghanistan in my opinion. (If the debacle over what strategy we should employ in Afghanistan interests you, post in the comments and I'll redirect you to some very compelling articles).
All things said, Obama glossed over some critical issues to avoid talking about a losing war. There are other examples, such as Obama's lack of specific policy on immigration. He did not mention the Dream Act once. This may be better considering the Tuscon shootings - one policy that wasn't even the most popular won't be a solution at this point. Certainly, whether its good or not, it at least showed how Obama does not have any specific legislation planned for the near future.
I'll stop here as to not overwhelm you, but please post in the comments things you noticed that weren't entirely explicit/intentional in his speech. I'll be sure to respond. :]
Click here for a transcript of the speech provided by NPR.
Click here for a video of the speech provided by Youtube.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
"Exposing Nuclear Phallacies" - A Book Review
Wow. What a book.
I'm sure I've surprised most of you that my first book review isn't an advocate for Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Although I reference the blog Freakonomics on the New York Times in almost all of my posts, I have yet to read the book. (As of now it's on the top of my "To Do List" for spring break).
Regardless, let us not have that distract us from my winter break reading: Exposing Nuclear Phallacies edited by Diana E. Russell.
This book is not light reading or for the close minded. Although some chapters are more successful than others, each will make you reconsider how you view international politics and the nuclear weapon. As the title might suggest, a large majority of this book explores the relationship patriarchy has with modern warfare.
My only history with true feminist theory or even social movements have been strictly through debate (probably suiting that my debate coach originally recommended the book) and even I've followed it fairly well. I would consider one of its strengths to be the utilization of different authors and the variety of studies contributed; together, they allow more well versed readers to still be intrigued and more novice readers to be able to pick and choose what's the easiest way for them to dip their toes into this vast literature base.
With that said, here are some chapters to watch out for (check it out even if you don't have the attention span or time to read the entire book)-
Chapter6: Naming the Cultural Forces that Push Us Toward War by Charlene Spretnak;
-My recommendation as a good starting chapter for beginners. Spretnak includes a lot of historical references to patriarchal societies and the consequential emerging violence. I was slightly turned off by what I thought was a oversimplification of multiple factors, however, it provides a good basis for what many feminist authors will claim.
Chapter 8: Ideologies of Madness by Susan Griffin;
-My personal favorite. I'm looking into buying a copy of this (currently borrowed) book just for this chapter. Griffin explores the atomic bomb, the very point where we discover there was a continuum between matter and energy instead of a separation. She argues our drive to find a way to separate matter from energy, instead of unifying humanity, created a dualism that created 'the enemy'. In my opinion, Griffin provides the most innovative and developed explanation for current politics. Readers of any experience will find something intriguing in this chapter.
Chapter 22: Only Justice Can Stop a Curse by Alice Walker
-Very short, but very powerful. This is not a complicated set of pages but delivers more emotions than most 200page novels can accomplish. Walker does a brilliant job of continuing the book's satire tones while coming to a conclusion. If anyone has trouble understanding 'why they should care', I implore you to take the 5minutes to read this chapter.
How many of you have considered the 'intrinsic' ties methodologies of patriarchy and war have in common? Maybe it's time to start.
The nuclear weapon has never seemed more complex and simpler...
I'm sure I've surprised most of you that my first book review isn't an advocate for Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Although I reference the blog Freakonomics on the New York Times in almost all of my posts, I have yet to read the book. (As of now it's on the top of my "To Do List" for spring break).
Regardless, let us not have that distract us from my winter break reading: Exposing Nuclear Phallacies edited by Diana E. Russell.
This book is not light reading or for the close minded. Although some chapters are more successful than others, each will make you reconsider how you view international politics and the nuclear weapon. As the title might suggest, a large majority of this book explores the relationship patriarchy has with modern warfare.
My only history with true feminist theory or even social movements have been strictly through debate (probably suiting that my debate coach originally recommended the book) and even I've followed it fairly well. I would consider one of its strengths to be the utilization of different authors and the variety of studies contributed; together, they allow more well versed readers to still be intrigued and more novice readers to be able to pick and choose what's the easiest way for them to dip their toes into this vast literature base.
With that said, here are some chapters to watch out for (check it out even if you don't have the attention span or time to read the entire book)-
Chapter6: Naming the Cultural Forces that Push Us Toward War by Charlene Spretnak;
-My recommendation as a good starting chapter for beginners. Spretnak includes a lot of historical references to patriarchal societies and the consequential emerging violence. I was slightly turned off by what I thought was a oversimplification of multiple factors, however, it provides a good basis for what many feminist authors will claim.
Chapter 8: Ideologies of Madness by Susan Griffin;
-My personal favorite. I'm looking into buying a copy of this (currently borrowed) book just for this chapter. Griffin explores the atomic bomb, the very point where we discover there was a continuum between matter and energy instead of a separation. She argues our drive to find a way to separate matter from energy, instead of unifying humanity, created a dualism that created 'the enemy'. In my opinion, Griffin provides the most innovative and developed explanation for current politics. Readers of any experience will find something intriguing in this chapter.
Chapter 22: Only Justice Can Stop a Curse by Alice Walker
-Very short, but very powerful. This is not a complicated set of pages but delivers more emotions than most 200page novels can accomplish. Walker does a brilliant job of continuing the book's satire tones while coming to a conclusion. If anyone has trouble understanding 'why they should care', I implore you to take the 5minutes to read this chapter.
How many of you have considered the 'intrinsic' ties methodologies of patriarchy and war have in common? Maybe it's time to start.
The nuclear weapon has never seemed more complex and simpler...
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Handlebars
Today in English class we discussed the us-them dichotomy. I'm not sure if my readers have had much discussion in the creation and existence of the "other" (be it through debate, class, or free reading), but hopefully this isn't too complicated.
On almost any conceivable scale, humans create a forced dichotomy - sometimes as 'small' as an individual scale of 'they don't listen to the pop music I like, they're emo" to entire cultures judging one another such as some Americans being so ready to think of all Muslims as the 'enemy'.
These dichotomies are dangerous and at the very least, greatly limit the potential for valuable life experiences. Arguably, they will always exist to some extent (people will always try to fill the void they subconsciously feel in understanding who they are themselves). However, we should try to recognize them. Recognize them to overcome the biases they create.
To end/your challenge -
Here's a music video by the Flobots. The song is entitled Handlebars.
At the beginning two children are friends. At the end, well...you'll see.
Discuss in the comments what role you think the us-them dichotomy plays in the video.
Here are lyrics for reference.
On almost any conceivable scale, humans create a forced dichotomy - sometimes as 'small' as an individual scale of 'they don't listen to the pop music I like, they're emo" to entire cultures judging one another such as some Americans being so ready to think of all Muslims as the 'enemy'.
These dichotomies are dangerous and at the very least, greatly limit the potential for valuable life experiences. Arguably, they will always exist to some extent (people will always try to fill the void they subconsciously feel in understanding who they are themselves). However, we should try to recognize them. Recognize them to overcome the biases they create.
To end/your challenge -
Here's a music video by the Flobots. The song is entitled Handlebars.
At the beginning two children are friends. At the end, well...you'll see.
Discuss in the comments what role you think the us-them dichotomy plays in the video.
Here are lyrics for reference.
Monday, November 29, 2010
How to Accomplish Something
There's bound to be a reason why individuals act in a certain way. Sometimes, in certain instances, you need to control these reasons to receive a particular outcome.
How do you persuade someone to do something?
Ahh, the question of incentives. Although I believe there's a time and a place for all forms of these incentives, there's a surprising amount of literature that advocates positive/negative incentives over the other the majority of the time.
I find a problem with this because it seems to overlook many facets of what's effective. Is it as simple as positive versus negative incentives? Either reward someone or penalize them to encourage a certain outcome?
When reading up on an incentive experiment that was employed on the trapped Chilean miners (found here) there was more manipulation occurring then what met the eye. To prevent them from having conflicts with each other, the positive/negative incentives worked as a distraction.
I'm not sure if this post will help you get others on your side, or prevent you from being manipulated in doing something you might not necessarily want to...
either way, things are as never as simple as they seem.
How do you persuade someone to do something?
Ahh, the question of incentives. Although I believe there's a time and a place for all forms of these incentives, there's a surprising amount of literature that advocates positive/negative incentives over the other the majority of the time.
I find a problem with this because it seems to overlook many facets of what's effective. Is it as simple as positive versus negative incentives? Either reward someone or penalize them to encourage a certain outcome?
When reading up on an incentive experiment that was employed on the trapped Chilean miners (found here) there was more manipulation occurring then what met the eye. To prevent them from having conflicts with each other, the positive/negative incentives worked as a distraction.
I'm not sure if this post will help you get others on your side, or prevent you from being manipulated in doing something you might not necessarily want to...
either way, things are as never as simple as they seem.
The Veil
In English class, we've began Reading Lolita in Tehran, by Azar Nafisi. It follows lessons she taught to students in Tehran. Together, they read more controversial books in Nafisi's home, after she left the University due to her frustrations.
What I wanted to open up for discussion (inspired by this book) is whether the veil is good or bad?
If you weren't allowed to say "well, it should be allowed but not mandated" but actually forced to take an extreme, which would you choose?
If you put some time into your response, I'll respond back defending the opposite.
Good luck.
What I wanted to open up for discussion (inspired by this book) is whether the veil is good or bad?
If you weren't allowed to say "well, it should be allowed but not mandated" but actually forced to take an extreme, which would you choose?
If you put some time into your response, I'll respond back defending the opposite.
Good luck.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
McDonalds - Maybe not poisoness?
I find myself being inspired by a lot of freakonomics posts...
So, needless to say, check out their blog if you haven't already!
As for my actual topic, as much as it pains me to type it, it's time to play devil's advocate for the fast food business.
I'm not sure what readers out there know about me but I am a vegetarian. I haven't had meat in a little over 4 years. Due to their meat-centric (or meat like substance-centric) menu, I haven't had much desire to dine at fast food chains such as McDonald's. On numerous occasions, I've also watched the movie Super Size Me (which you can conveniently watch on hulu if you click here). My favorite part of the movie is in the 'bonus features' in which Morgan Spurlock, director and star, seals away food in air tight containers. He takes items from McDonald's menu, and he takes their 'real restaurant' equivalent. While the 'normal' french fries grew mold in a day, McDonald's french fries went 7weeks with out a single sighted spore, until they were accidentally thrown away.
Well, with all those preservatives, I know had another reason to never eat at Mc-D's.
I assumed Spurlock's analysis on why the food hadn't molded was correct; it made sense and he had evidence right in front of him. It wasn't until I read this post that I even thought about an alternative explanation.
Now, I consider both to be partially right. I'm not sure how much surface area can explain the same disdain for mold the french fries had. I don't think we can entirely dismiss Spurlock's study. However, these new studies prove another factor, maybe the only factor in the hamburgers.
What I had to ask myself, and will suggest you do the same, is 'why was it so easy to believe Spurlock'? There's probably a few factors such as 1) it was presented in a documentary, which has professional connotations 2) Spurlock was very good in gathering sources when he was commenting on anything else in the film, and 3) it made sense. I can live with those assumptions, there's some logic. Some assumptions are necessary to drawn conclusions and make decisions.
The assumption I was disappointed in, was probably that Spurlock was right because he was proving how everyone else was wrong. Think about it. Spurlock was trying to prove the health dangers and general problems behind McDonald's food. He was already, in some fashion, trying to unveil assumptions.
Never let someone control how you see the world entirely. You may listen, and change your mind, based off people like Spurlock, but always question. You don't know the assumptions Spurlock's making, or even me.
Maybe McDonald's doesn't inject poison in it's food....however it still probably gives out heart attacks(but that's for another time).
So, needless to say, check out their blog if you haven't already!
As for my actual topic, as much as it pains me to type it, it's time to play devil's advocate for the fast food business.
I'm not sure what readers out there know about me but I am a vegetarian. I haven't had meat in a little over 4 years. Due to their meat-centric (or meat like substance-centric) menu, I haven't had much desire to dine at fast food chains such as McDonald's. On numerous occasions, I've also watched the movie Super Size Me (which you can conveniently watch on hulu if you click here). My favorite part of the movie is in the 'bonus features' in which Morgan Spurlock, director and star, seals away food in air tight containers. He takes items from McDonald's menu, and he takes their 'real restaurant' equivalent. While the 'normal' french fries grew mold in a day, McDonald's french fries went 7weeks with out a single sighted spore, until they were accidentally thrown away.
Well, with all those preservatives, I know had another reason to never eat at Mc-D's.
I assumed Spurlock's analysis on why the food hadn't molded was correct; it made sense and he had evidence right in front of him. It wasn't until I read this post that I even thought about an alternative explanation.
Now, I consider both to be partially right. I'm not sure how much surface area can explain the same disdain for mold the french fries had. I don't think we can entirely dismiss Spurlock's study. However, these new studies prove another factor, maybe the only factor in the hamburgers.
What I had to ask myself, and will suggest you do the same, is 'why was it so easy to believe Spurlock'? There's probably a few factors such as 1) it was presented in a documentary, which has professional connotations 2) Spurlock was very good in gathering sources when he was commenting on anything else in the film, and 3) it made sense. I can live with those assumptions, there's some logic. Some assumptions are necessary to drawn conclusions and make decisions.
The assumption I was disappointed in, was probably that Spurlock was right because he was proving how everyone else was wrong. Think about it. Spurlock was trying to prove the health dangers and general problems behind McDonald's food. He was already, in some fashion, trying to unveil assumptions.
Never let someone control how you see the world entirely. You may listen, and change your mind, based off people like Spurlock, but always question. You don't know the assumptions Spurlock's making, or even me.
Maybe McDonald's doesn't inject poison in it's food....however it still probably gives out heart attacks(but that's for another time).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)