Which piece of literature has had the largest effect in my life? Why?
My immediate reaction is to say Plato's Republic, hands down, but the Republic only gave me half of the story. Well. Two-thirds of it. The remaining third I got from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. Plato's Republic taught me how to think, and the Nichomachean Ethics taught me how to act. I read both of these books in my junior year of high school, and they quite literally changed my life.
The different ways that people think are ridiculously diverse, and I have no idea how to characterize the way I thought before junior year. I took most things at face value, I made grand statements about things I understood very little of, and although I was very good at winning an argument, I thought winning was the point. Well, through Plato, I came to the realization that I'm probably wrong in just about everything I believe, and that it is counterproductive to assume that you know the answers to everything, or even anything. Plato sort of cut my knees out from under me, and forced me to rethink... well, everything. I was raised Christian, so of course, I knew I wasn't supposed to steal, or cheat, or do bad things, etc. But I didn't really *know* that. It was something my parents told me, it was something society expected of me, so I was happy to do it. But in high school, there are so many temptations, things your parents tell you to do, or, rather, not to do get harder and harder not to do. A lot of lines get real fuzzy. I was, intellectually and morally, in a very dangerous situation. One of the most important parts of my transformation of my mind, if you will, was my dad. I have always prided myself on having a good relationship with my parents, but during this whole episode, I realized a couple of things. My dad works for the justice department, and by the time I was in junior year, he had been doing the job he was being paid to do, as well as the job above him. The guy's job who was above him was to manage all of the people who did the job my dad did. Needless to say, my dad was a little overworked. In addition, my dad worked part-time at my high school, teaching the two-hour, philosophy/literature/history seminar that juniors take. So he was *really* overworked. Well, after a little while I realized that my dad had kept the teaching job, despite being overworked, because he wanted to be there to teach the stuff to me. Well, that made me realize, damn, it is this important to him that I understand the full impact of this stuff. Wow, this must be important. Well, it was. All of those things that I used to believe because I was told to believe them I now believe because I understand them, because I have worked through them myself. Lines still get fuzzy, but I have the tools to sharpen them again. Before, my soul was some concept that was important for some reason...yeah. Well, now it's something I think about daily, and its importance is central to my life. However, while working through the Republic made me realize the importance of my soul, and that I should always act justly, it did not tell me, in very much detail, how to act justly. From the Republic, I gained universal principles and the like, but day to day details were lacking. That is where Aristotle came in. Aristotle taught me gratitude, both to my parents, my school and, well, my nation. I can be quite cynical at times, and you will never see me up on a stage saying how great America is, I'm not an outspoken patriot, but I will forever be grateful for everything that the U.S. has made possible for me. So Aristotle gave me perspective, and understanding. Further, he taught me the true meaning of words like courage, justice and reason. We all know what justice is... but do we really? The number of things Plato and Aristotle made me really think about was astounding, and it was always remarkable to me that I could get so many answers from Plato, and yet Socrates, the actual speaker in the Republic, is forever the one asking the questions. He claims he knows nothing, yet everything I learned, I learned from him.
All in all, Aristotle and Plato saved me from a whole lot of mediocrity, and gave me a shot at real happiness. I even still read them, so not only have they had an impact on my life, but they continue to. I can usually get something new every time I read even bits and pieces. For a couple of guys who died 2400 years ago, they did a great job answering questions that we don't even think to ask anymore.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Alcohol
Should the drinking age be lowered to 18?
I am going to go ahead and say no. Let's look at why. First, let's look at the problems with the drinking age as it is now. One argument I have heard is as follows: People get their drivers license around the age of 16. They proceed to become adept at driving, and 5 years later, when they can drink, they are very confident in their driving ability, and thus they are not very careful, even without throwing alcohol into the mixture. At age 21, suddenly a door is opened and they can drink all they want. This sudden freedom, coupled with the years and years of hype about alcohol, tripled with their confidence in their driving ability all lead to serious car accidents. The reasoning is sound, but only if you intend to have the drinking age reduced to 14 or lower. Somehow, I don't think that would go over well with most parents. Now, as someone who is under the age of 21, lowering the drinking age would be pretty cool, but there are a number of reasons why it's impractical. First of all, in effect, it's pointless. The people who are the problem (i.e. the people who cause car accidents, do stupid things while drunk, etc.) are generally underage drinkers anyways. Making their drinking legal would only mean that their displays of drunken stupidity would be more public. Further, if the legal drinking age were reduced, then all of those 18-20 year-olds who actually obey the law would be free to drink, and you would only be adding to the percentage of the population that can do damage to themselves and others. So really, lowering the drinking age would have very little effect, other than allowing thousands of underage drinkers to continue practicing their craft with a clear conscience. Further, it would encourage them to go to even greater (and more public) lengths to see who can be the most idiotic drunk in the state. Even without all that, there is another problem. Right now, the legal drinking age is 21, yet there are thousands and thousands of 16-20 year-olds who drink anyway. If you reduce the drinking age by three years, then it follows that the actual drinking age would become 13 and up, instead of 16 and up. Of course, when dealing with something as complex as large populations and their drinking habits, the numbers probably don't work out that perfectly. Maybe the age would be 12 and up, or maybe it would be 14 and up, but the point is that the devil you know is better than the one you don't. That, of course, assumes that the motivation for changing the drinking age would be to reduce the number of alcohol related incidents. If the motivation is simply that you're underage and you want to drink legally, well, tough noogies. I would love to have a beer or two every once in a while as well, but the number of forseeable evils vastly outweighs our selfish desire to enjoy ourselves a bit. There are, however, plenty of exceptions.
Also, let us further examine the motivation of those who want the drinking age lowered. This really only applies in 42 states, but I think that's probably enough to make this relevant. 42 states allow underage drinking in private, non alcohol-selling residences with parental consent. If someone is so set on drinking alcohol outside of the presence of their parents that they want to change the legal drinking age, what reason is there to believe that they are being intelligent with their drinking? Yes, there are plenty of parents who refuse to allow their kid to drink alcohol under any circumstances, but most of the time there is a reason for that. Namely, the strength of the kid's common sense and reasoning ability.
In conclusion, it seems that it would be a bit pointless to lower the legal drinking age. The number of problems that it would cause outweighs the good it would do, if there actually is any positive good that it would do.
I am going to go ahead and say no. Let's look at why. First, let's look at the problems with the drinking age as it is now. One argument I have heard is as follows: People get their drivers license around the age of 16. They proceed to become adept at driving, and 5 years later, when they can drink, they are very confident in their driving ability, and thus they are not very careful, even without throwing alcohol into the mixture. At age 21, suddenly a door is opened and they can drink all they want. This sudden freedom, coupled with the years and years of hype about alcohol, tripled with their confidence in their driving ability all lead to serious car accidents. The reasoning is sound, but only if you intend to have the drinking age reduced to 14 or lower. Somehow, I don't think that would go over well with most parents. Now, as someone who is under the age of 21, lowering the drinking age would be pretty cool, but there are a number of reasons why it's impractical. First of all, in effect, it's pointless. The people who are the problem (i.e. the people who cause car accidents, do stupid things while drunk, etc.) are generally underage drinkers anyways. Making their drinking legal would only mean that their displays of drunken stupidity would be more public. Further, if the legal drinking age were reduced, then all of those 18-20 year-olds who actually obey the law would be free to drink, and you would only be adding to the percentage of the population that can do damage to themselves and others. So really, lowering the drinking age would have very little effect, other than allowing thousands of underage drinkers to continue practicing their craft with a clear conscience. Further, it would encourage them to go to even greater (and more public) lengths to see who can be the most idiotic drunk in the state. Even without all that, there is another problem. Right now, the legal drinking age is 21, yet there are thousands and thousands of 16-20 year-olds who drink anyway. If you reduce the drinking age by three years, then it follows that the actual drinking age would become 13 and up, instead of 16 and up. Of course, when dealing with something as complex as large populations and their drinking habits, the numbers probably don't work out that perfectly. Maybe the age would be 12 and up, or maybe it would be 14 and up, but the point is that the devil you know is better than the one you don't. That, of course, assumes that the motivation for changing the drinking age would be to reduce the number of alcohol related incidents. If the motivation is simply that you're underage and you want to drink legally, well, tough noogies. I would love to have a beer or two every once in a while as well, but the number of forseeable evils vastly outweighs our selfish desire to enjoy ourselves a bit. There are, however, plenty of exceptions.
Also, let us further examine the motivation of those who want the drinking age lowered. This really only applies in 42 states, but I think that's probably enough to make this relevant. 42 states allow underage drinking in private, non alcohol-selling residences with parental consent. If someone is so set on drinking alcohol outside of the presence of their parents that they want to change the legal drinking age, what reason is there to believe that they are being intelligent with their drinking? Yes, there are plenty of parents who refuse to allow their kid to drink alcohol under any circumstances, but most of the time there is a reason for that. Namely, the strength of the kid's common sense and reasoning ability.
In conclusion, it seems that it would be a bit pointless to lower the legal drinking age. The number of problems that it would cause outweighs the good it would do, if there actually is any positive good that it would do.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Belief or knowledge?
What do you think is more important: Developing beliefs or gaining knowledge? Why?
I think that the two are too important to say that one is better than the other. Belief without knowledge is useless, and knowledge without belief is extremely dangerous. Further, belief is based, in large part, on knowledge, so with no knowledge, belief cannot exist. For instance, Native Americans were not born believing in the spirits that inhabited the sun, the animals, the plants, etc. They observed that things were chaotic and harsh, and, in true human fashion, they used that knowledge to construct something out of the chaos that did make sense; there are spirits, some malevolent, some not, that inhabit things. In this way, they used their knowledge to construct belief. As for knowledge without belief, that is a dangerous combination. If someone has tremendous power, and they know everything there is to know about manipulating people and getting anything they want, but they do not have any sort of ethical code preventing him from abusing this knowledge, then everyone is in trouble. For instance, take corrupt politicians, dictators, and the like. They have tremendous power to do good, they know exactly how they can make peoples' lives better, but instead they cheat on their wives, take money under the table, or have their people murdered. Belief with limited knowledge is also dangerous. It is the cause of hate and the myriad of horrors that follow. It is very easy, when you are leading a cause, to feed your followers only part of the truth, and let them get angry over that. For instance, in a previous post, I discussed the amounts of money that professional athletes are paid. It would be quite easy to go get the statistics, show them to a bunch of people, get them all riled up over how grossly overpaid these people are, and start a movement that had the ultimate goal of stripping professional athletes of their excess wealth. Yet in doing so, the movement would effectively destroy the orphanage or school that athlete X built, and the children would end up on the street. It would end up closing down the dozens of soup kitchens funded by athletes Y and Z, causing hundreds of the homeless to go hungry. In the end, it would result in a number of horrors just so the ignorant jerk leading the movement, and the idiots following him, could feel better about their mediocrity. The better path, in my opinion, is to combine knowledge and belief, and allow the one to support the other. It is better to achieve a balance in your growth of belief and knowledge by allowing your belief to guide your knowledge, and further your desire for it, and allow your knowledge to support and strengthen your belief. The end result of this combination is understanding, and it is only this understanding that can end the numerous atrocities that people have been committing for thousands of years.
I think that the two are too important to say that one is better than the other. Belief without knowledge is useless, and knowledge without belief is extremely dangerous. Further, belief is based, in large part, on knowledge, so with no knowledge, belief cannot exist. For instance, Native Americans were not born believing in the spirits that inhabited the sun, the animals, the plants, etc. They observed that things were chaotic and harsh, and, in true human fashion, they used that knowledge to construct something out of the chaos that did make sense; there are spirits, some malevolent, some not, that inhabit things. In this way, they used their knowledge to construct belief. As for knowledge without belief, that is a dangerous combination. If someone has tremendous power, and they know everything there is to know about manipulating people and getting anything they want, but they do not have any sort of ethical code preventing him from abusing this knowledge, then everyone is in trouble. For instance, take corrupt politicians, dictators, and the like. They have tremendous power to do good, they know exactly how they can make peoples' lives better, but instead they cheat on their wives, take money under the table, or have their people murdered. Belief with limited knowledge is also dangerous. It is the cause of hate and the myriad of horrors that follow. It is very easy, when you are leading a cause, to feed your followers only part of the truth, and let them get angry over that. For instance, in a previous post, I discussed the amounts of money that professional athletes are paid. It would be quite easy to go get the statistics, show them to a bunch of people, get them all riled up over how grossly overpaid these people are, and start a movement that had the ultimate goal of stripping professional athletes of their excess wealth. Yet in doing so, the movement would effectively destroy the orphanage or school that athlete X built, and the children would end up on the street. It would end up closing down the dozens of soup kitchens funded by athletes Y and Z, causing hundreds of the homeless to go hungry. In the end, it would result in a number of horrors just so the ignorant jerk leading the movement, and the idiots following him, could feel better about their mediocrity. The better path, in my opinion, is to combine knowledge and belief, and allow the one to support the other. It is better to achieve a balance in your growth of belief and knowledge by allowing your belief to guide your knowledge, and further your desire for it, and allow your knowledge to support and strengthen your belief. The end result of this combination is understanding, and it is only this understanding that can end the numerous atrocities that people have been committing for thousands of years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)