Intro to English Lit. Prof was remarking on the different ways in which those in the sciences and those in the humanities work and think. And while I agree that there are certainly trends in the behavioural patterns between those of either camp, I don't think that stressing such differences, even if to say that it's better to have both, is beneficial. It is only because we continue to label and pigeon-hole people into these territories that separatists continue to perpetuate the rift between the two realms. Human beings have an inherent Grand Unifying Mind, which would allow them to be equally successful in either field. As far as I can make out, both schools require the same sort of logic. I sincerely fail to see where the approach to one is different to the other. Anywhoo..
Another curious affect I've noticed from taking my crazy 6 courses of English Literature, is how trivial and hollow certain forms of entertainment become. I can't watch shows without analysing the character relations, and how they might echo certain themes in the not-yet determined motifs in the storyline. I blame British Literature 1885-1918.
2008/01/30
2008/01/27
Meativore?
Apparently, for most people whom I don't directly inform, my preference for meat (in either sense of the term) has been constantly questioned. "Is he vegetarian or not? I could have sworn I've seen him eat a hotdog before... But it might have been a veggie dog." And also, "He says he's fruity... does he really know what that means? Also, is it normal for a guy to make gay jokes about himself so often?"
As for the dietary preference, I've apparently exuded a vegetarian-type personality long before I made the decision to actually be vegetarian. (But contrary to belief, I'm a practical vegetarian, instead of the moral vegetarian; I abstain for health reasons, not out of any sentiments of kinship with the lower mammals.) But then, I'll also eat organic meats.
So what would this imply for my other preference? "40% gay" to go with my "80% vegetarian"? Unfortunately, you'll not get a straight answer here! (no pun intended)
I will, however, share a little secret: my ambiguity for the latter is intentional. Why? Two reasons: (1) it keeps undesirables away, and if confronted with one, I can always use the plausible excuse that I run the other way (or is it "swing" the other way?); (2) it's a cheap preliminary way to keep only the friends who wouldn't be so insensitive as to only forge friendships over something so superficial. (Can't really do much about the looks though. Although I'd only consider getting contacts 'cause glasses fog up too much when I go out/inside in winter, as now.)
As for the dietary preference, I've apparently exuded a vegetarian-type personality long before I made the decision to actually be vegetarian. (But contrary to belief, I'm a practical vegetarian, instead of the moral vegetarian; I abstain for health reasons, not out of any sentiments of kinship with the lower mammals.) But then, I'll also eat organic meats.
So what would this imply for my other preference? "40% gay" to go with my "80% vegetarian"? Unfortunately, you'll not get a straight answer here! (no pun intended)
I will, however, share a little secret: my ambiguity for the latter is intentional. Why? Two reasons: (1) it keeps undesirables away, and if confronted with one, I can always use the plausible excuse that I run the other way (or is it "swing" the other way?); (2) it's a cheap preliminary way to keep only the friends who wouldn't be so insensitive as to only forge friendships over something so superficial. (Can't really do much about the looks though. Although I'd only consider getting contacts 'cause glasses fog up too much when I go out/inside in winter, as now.)
2008/01/12
Chaotic Conformity
What is morality without religion? Or better stated, what does it mean for something to be intrinsically "good" or "bad" when we assume that living things are just fact without a predetermined value?
Now, that's a very broad topic, and one that seems to be warmly debated between a/theists. So let's look at a relatively neutral and local example: "it's fine as long as it doesn't hurt or affect anybody else".
On the surface, this seems like a pretty fair statement. What I do to myself is my business, and as long as my blood-splattered remains don't stain your carpet, what matter is it to you that I took my life? Or how does it hurt your business if I lie and claim to be older in order to contribute to your business in sex/booze/drugs? No skin off your nose, as it were.
But when you really think about it, it's quite a loaded (and tall) statement to make. Just by being in the observable vicinity of others, you affect them. Your appearance and behaviour can cause people to fall into rapture or seizure, to drool or convulse. A random act of kindness has the power to lift a stranger from the pits of oblivion and obscurity, and a clumsy word might incur a hundred-year wrath. When you're faced with these possibilities, how can you possibly claim to have knowledge of the extent to which you affect others? And to that end, how can you possibly justify any questionable actions that you take?
In theory, the safest route would be isolate yourself from society and hope to stem all impressions you leave on society. But the neighbouring kids would gossip about the crazy old man down the street, or the "haunted" house. But that's kind of a waste of a life, so you may as well go out there and do the best that you can.
Having said that, we finally come to my main point: social norms. When we talk about affecting people, we can legitimately extend this to include social instruction and public conduct. Shaking hands and speaking greetings are some pretty direct modes of interaction with others. But, people being different, and certain individuals being more negatively impressionable than others, do we have a right to instruct them on their errors? Do we have the position or authority to tell them that they should smile, or shower?
If we don't, we're technically tacitly approving certain rude or offensive behaviours. So if everything we do already affect the people we're in contact with, we may as well go all out and actively mend the broken cogs in others' social mechanics.
As a tutor of pre/teens, this means I have the prerogative to correct any socially unacceptable behaviour. I only wish my students weren't so violent. :'(
Now, that's a very broad topic, and one that seems to be warmly debated between a/theists. So let's look at a relatively neutral and local example: "it's fine as long as it doesn't hurt or affect anybody else".
On the surface, this seems like a pretty fair statement. What I do to myself is my business, and as long as my blood-splattered remains don't stain your carpet, what matter is it to you that I took my life? Or how does it hurt your business if I lie and claim to be older in order to contribute to your business in sex/booze/drugs? No skin off your nose, as it were.
But when you really think about it, it's quite a loaded (and tall) statement to make. Just by being in the observable vicinity of others, you affect them. Your appearance and behaviour can cause people to fall into rapture or seizure, to drool or convulse. A random act of kindness has the power to lift a stranger from the pits of oblivion and obscurity, and a clumsy word might incur a hundred-year wrath. When you're faced with these possibilities, how can you possibly claim to have knowledge of the extent to which you affect others? And to that end, how can you possibly justify any questionable actions that you take?
In theory, the safest route would be isolate yourself from society and hope to stem all impressions you leave on society. But the neighbouring kids would gossip about the crazy old man down the street, or the "haunted" house. But that's kind of a waste of a life, so you may as well go out there and do the best that you can.
Having said that, we finally come to my main point: social norms. When we talk about affecting people, we can legitimately extend this to include social instruction and public conduct. Shaking hands and speaking greetings are some pretty direct modes of interaction with others. But, people being different, and certain individuals being more negatively impressionable than others, do we have a right to instruct them on their errors? Do we have the position or authority to tell them that they should smile, or shower?
If we don't, we're technically tacitly approving certain rude or offensive behaviours. So if everything we do already affect the people we're in contact with, we may as well go all out and actively mend the broken cogs in others' social mechanics.
As a tutor of pre/teens, this means I have the prerogative to correct any socially unacceptable behaviour. I only wish my students weren't so violent. :'(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)