Reflection on 1st Quarter

A few days before school started, I had a dream that I went to this class and was bored and annoyed with it all for various reasons, which I mostly can not remember now. Thankfully, reality ( although I know someone would want to debate what constitutes reality...), couldn't be further from this image!

I wasn't sure to what to expect walking into class on the first day. I have to admit, I laughed a bit at the calming guitar music playing in the background- it was nice, but so stereotypical of a high school philosophy class! I was halfway through Sophie's World, and pretty unimpressed. Even though I was interested in philosophy as a whole, I honestly did not think I had a single thing worth saying to anyone, and I didn't really expect to learn anything of importance from my peers.

But after the first seminar two days later, I knew this would be a great year. Everyone was so passionate and sincere in their comments. There was no feeling of: "I have to speak this many times to get a good grade." It was organic. Everyone was upbeat and engaged, and there was no pressure. It wasn't like other discussions I've had throughout high school. Our class is made up of brilliant and encouraging individuals- the whole environment makes it easier to become interested and involved in whatever we're doing.

I really do like this class. I feel motivated to work harder and participate, not only for a grade, but because I care and I enjoy learning more. I find myself connecting the things we learn in class to everything I do outside of it. And I'm excited to continue learning more about myself and the world in upcoming quarters.

Bookstores

I visit Barnes and Noble in Clarendon at least every other weekend. I can spend hours picking up titles and thumbing through them with my friends or sisters. It's rare that I ever read through an entire page though, and much less likely that I actually take a book home. When I do buy a book, I tend to give up on it and move to something else after 100 pages or so.

On Saturday, I was determined to change that. I charged past the fiction and history sections that usually eat up so much of my time, and starting looking through the science shelves I never noticed before.

I saw The Digital Divide and was reminded of philosophy class, so I decided to sit down near a window and actually take the time to read through some of it. It's been awhile since I've read like this. I read articles on the internet, I read the chapters we're assigned for school and more, and I force myself to read around 10 pages of any book before going to sleep. But sitting by myself in the sun, there was a feeling of calm I don't usually experience. I didn't feel obligated to anything, and I didn't have to think of anything else. I didn't even have to worry about whether the book would be good or bad- it was just the simple act of reading.

The irony of The Digital Divide is that you don't need it. It's a collection of essays discussing the impact technological advances have on us, yet every one of these essays are readily available on the internet. So even though I knew I wanted to buy a book, it wasn't going to be that one. I looked at another book by Bauerlein (this one completely his own), The Dumbest Generation, but the title alone was enough to dissuade me. Looking up at the three shelves, I felt a sinking feeling. There was at least ten books that seemed interesting at first glance (one, coincidentally titled, How We Decide). But how do I know which one is worth devoting time and effort to? I couldn't read through all the books in a single shelf, I wasn't even going to get through the all the titles in a single shelf. With so much thought and effort put into one book, so much information at my fingertips, how would I know where to start?

I left empty-handed, again.

On Sunday, I was hanging out with a friend in Falls Church when we noticed Hole in Wall Books. It looked so quirky and fun that we dropped our plans for lunch and went inside. There were books everywhere. You couldn't see much of the wall. Shelves lined every inch of it, all jam-packed. Books were piled on tables and on the floor. It was exciting. There was none of the organization found in Barnes and Noble. Books from different decades, some costing less than a dollar, were all crammed together in different nooks. I figured I could buy some old 35 cent book with a funny title, go home, and discover a completely random and unknown idea.

I don't know why I didn't.

Does "information overload" exist not only on the internet, but in bookstores as well? I love walking around in them, knowing that there are different ideas, characters and stories existing in every one of the millions of pages. At the same time, I'm filled with a sense of hopelessness. There's so much that I want to know, and I will only ever be able to take in a fraction of the information in one single bookstore. It's so intimidating that I usually leave without even trying.

Music

You couldn't tell it was a Friday night at my house. At 9:30, almost all the lights were out. Both my sisters were asleep, my mom was reading upstairs with only a faint bluish glow from the nook, and my dad was dozing off in front of a muted baseball game on tv. I was rediscovering my love of piano.

Over the summer, I all but completely stopped practicing piano and guitar. Piano became a once-a-week, half-an-hour obligation where I had to try and not disappoint my teacher too much. And I didn't touch a guitar unless my dad asked me to play with him for 20 minutes or so. I felt tired, lazy, uninspired. With the start of senior year, this only worsened, as I was distracted and stressed out by everything school-related.

I'm not sure how to put this, but I felt passive and exhausted at the beginning of this school year. I was getting less sleep than ever, I felt like I couldn't devote my time to anything, I was losing interest in most everything. For awhile, it was basically walking to school and sitting around, then walking home and sitting around. So for those 45 minutes when I finally decided to sit down and create something beautiful, something I love, I felt happier then ever. I was alone in my own world, playing slow, sad, haunting, dramatic, peaceful, beautiful music. And it was all my own.

Music has always been a very personal, intimate thing for me. I don't like to listen to it or play it when any one else is around. Because the thought that something so affecting for me could be silly or wrong to someone else is frankly frightening. At the same time, isn't music a great unifier? Some 3 minute song can move thousands of people. People can have an personal connection with a song, while knowing that so many others have been touched by the same, simple arrangement of notes.

This is why I'm trying to be less insecure and protective of my music. I used to never play piano when anyone else was around- because I might make mistakes and burden them with having to hear something "wrong." And I still look forward to the times when my family heads off to one of my sister's softball tournaments, and I can play one of my dad's SACDS which is incompatible with my iTunes, and spin around and sing alone, free from fear of judgement. But if I play something when someone else is around, and they don't enjoy it, I don't want to feel bad about bugging them. I want to live music. Because the only sad thing is when we are unable to appreciate something so individually yet universally beautiful.

And A Firm Kierkegaardian

(all of these quotes are paraphrased from memory)
Me: Why do you hate Hegel so much?
My Dad: Because he tried to systematize and explain everything. And you can't
do that.
Me: Yeah, but do you just disagree with him, or do you find that, like,
morally detestable?
My Dad: ...Morally detestable.

I'm not sure this is a fair characterization of Hegel, but I think it brings up an interesting question. Could anyone ever create a philosophy complete in breadth? Isn't the world far too large and infinite for one human to attempt to explain it all?

In class, Mr.Summers said that it is "much easier to tear down than to create." How much can we attempt to create before it all feels too futile?

An UnHegelian Thought

The things you do when no one else is around- that's the person you are.

-person in my psychology class

Hegel

How does the internet tie into Hegel's idea of the world spirit? We can recognize anyone on the internet. It is by far the largest database of ideas, facts, opinions, perspectives and people. There a millions of people recognizing one another on the web each second. Many heres, many nows, indeed!

A Blank Piece of Paper

A blank piece of paper contains nothing. It is entirely up to the person looking at it to decide what it is. It is an empty slate for someone to fill. A person projects all their thoughts and experiences onto it in one moment. So when someone looks at a piece of paper, all that they see is a reflection of themselves.

A Mathematician's Lament

http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

This is a great article on the failures of K-12 mathematics education. Descartes would be ashamed.

The thought process so essential to math has been all but eradicated in school. We are taught not to think philosophically (math is philosophical!); but to take in formula after formula, and find new way to spit them out through exercises and word problems. I especially enjoyed the section on proofs- the bane of all geometry students' existence! They create an illusion of the process that goes into thinking mathematically, but are really something else entirely. Geometry proofs once again involve the memorization of removed postulates, and finding inaccessible and uninteresting ways to "solve a problem".

What is sad is that we are all asked to wait eleven or twelve years to find out if we are ready to think mathematically. We can not be trusted with our innate ability to reason until we have taken in numerous rules and formulas that we have no understanding of.

God Is Absurd

Initially, it was somewhat difficult to swallow Kierkegaard's belief about the 3 stages, and the teleological suspension of the ethical. Kierkegaard assumes that God exists, without any kind of logical explanation or proof, because...he just does. It's impossible to provide proof of God's existence.

But isn't this a little unfair? We are simply supposed to accept something so grand and inexplicable, casting aside everything we've learned and grown up believing? That's a tall order. Kierkegaard even says that it may be easier for someone who did not grow up in the Christian religion reach the religious stage, which I also have a hard time accepting. So someone who's grown up in a polytheistic religion, and known nothing else, is supposed to wake up one day and realize that there's only one God, and then put all of their faith in Him?

This reminds me a lot of one of my favorite books, The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky's last book shows three different perspectives on how to live life, and takes on the lofty task of explaining and arguing in support of faith in God (it's very Kierkegaardian!). And he certainly does not skimp on objections to his argument. Ivan Karamazov delivers a grand speech on his objections to God in the chapters Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor, possibly the most powerful sections in the massive book.I've often seen The Grand Inquisitor sold separately from the entire book.

In Rebellion, while discussing torture against children, Ivan states:

While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price...

...Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."

In The Grand Inquisitor, Ivan goes on to describe why it is wrong that God should've made humans so weak, and then expect us to cast everything aside for faith.

Perhaps these objections were too strong?

It's incredibly rare that I tear up while reading. But these two chapters so beautifully explained all the struggles I was having with religion and faith. Even if God really is so incomprehensible and absurd, it's still not fair. It's not fair that people should starve, it's not fair that children should be abused, it's not fair that there is such an inequality of resources and freedoms between peoples.

It isn't fair that God chose to make us purveyors of knowledge and security in an absurd world.

With all-encompassing power and knowledge, why did God decide to doom us in this way? Even Kierkegaard states that he was not in the religious stage. Is there anyone other than Abraham who has reached that point?

I believe, at one point or another, we all experience fear and trembling. When we realize that at one point we will die, and that we may not be ready to. When we realize that our lives don't mean much; eventually we will be forgotten and no worldly acquisitions or achievements will matter. How do we come to terms with our own mortality? Perhaps Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky are correct and we can only overcome such dread through faith. But I am not ready to accept this. I'll live out my life, and hopefully continue to search out meaning in this world and my own existence. As of now, I'm lost as to what to believe in.

Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche

This was an interesting debate with so many fantastic arguments from both sides. As others have stated, Nietzsche was not really opposed to Kierkegaard in the way that Kierkegaard was opposed to Hegel. I believe this made it a bit more difficult to come up with attacks and rebuttals, since both of them make similar points. Both philosophies center around the importance of the individual, and transcending societal law for a more meaningful existence, whether it be through teleological suspension of the ethical or through the process of exercising will to power and becoming an Ubermensch.

Before this class, Nietzsche was one of the only philosophers I had any interest in learning more about. It was disappointing to see that his philosophy was summed up in about a paragraph in Sophie's World! So I'm glad we chose to focus on him for the debate, instead of Hegel. I have a lot to say about both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and I'll write about them tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I can't find the conclusion I had written out for the debate. If it doesn't turn up, I'll update this post with one as close as I can remember.

Technology Changing our World

I've never been much of a technology person. I got a cell-phone in 9th grade without asking for one, often misplaced it, forgot it, lost it, and never answered it. 3 years later, I still don't know how to check my messages.

Cell phones are certainly convenient, but they also feel like a burden to me. Why should someone expect me to communicate with them at any place, at any time? I like feeling cut off from others once in awhile, able to live fully in the moment. With each innovation in communication technology, we become more closely connected to other people and places. At the same time, we become more disconnected from our immediate surroundings.

I feel that our world is starting to exist more in digital technology, and less in our physical surroundings. We learn about others lives from facebook statuses. We hear of major news events from twitter. We text friends even when people are talking right next to us. *

This all ties into the concept of multitasking, which was discussed and criticized in the documentary Digital Nation. With so many options for communicating with others and for finding new information/entertainment, we are faced with an overload of decisions to make. And often, when we can not decide what one thing to do, we try to do everything at once! When I'm on the internet, I'll often have up to ten tabs open. There is such an expansive world existing within the internet that I am tempted to take in all of it, without the work and patience needed to understand any of it. I constantly switch between tabs, forgetting what I was thinking about seconds ago.

People "switch tabs" constantly in everyday life. Text friends, do homework, talk to classmates, do other homework, surf the internet. This can all take place in minutes. We are overwhelmed by distractions, and struggle to commit to any task at hand.

Digital technology has a profound impact on our everyday life. We can learn anything, and talk to anyone, at any time. While this has great benefits, I feel that we often don't know how to handle the magnitude of it all. We linger between different ideas and different virtual worlds, unable to focus on any of them, ignoring the physical world we exist in.

----
*This is a huge pet peeve of mine. I wanted to punch all students in the documentary who spent their dinner with friends texting other people! I'm not a very social person, and it's frustrating to try and talk to someone when they are focused on something else. Some of my closest friends will spend the time we hang out on iPhones, even when we haven't seen each other in weeks!

Hume

Hume would find Descartes attempts to rationalize the world futile and pretentious. How can a person attempt to know more than what they themselves have experienced? Socrates himself said: "All I know is that I know nothing." Although Descartes claims that he can use his reason to realize that a puddle of wax is still wax, or that a mirage in the distance is just sensory deception, Hume does not think that is enough. Why is it wax in the first place? Can you ever really be certain that it is not something else?

This is why Hume champions empiricism. We interpret the world through our experiences and our reactions, not through the "facts" that scientists and mathematicians simply assume to be true.

Parmenides

Parmenides would argue that there are certain universal and unchanging truths within our own existence and the world around us. We are born, we die, and the process repeats itself. Throughout our lives, we share the same needs, emotions and thought processes. We can relate to any unknown person, knowing that they too have experienced excitement, fear, hunger, thirst, exhaustion and joy.

He would have also asserted that change is not present in the physical world (outside of our own existence) either. Although Parmenides would've have rejected a linear world view, I do not believe he would have completely agreed with a cyclical view either. He argued that the world is static, therefore it can not expand and contrast, it must be fixed into one concrete position. Newton's laws support this argument. They have remained the same since the world's formation, and guide the actions of every object that exists or has existed.

Introverted Philosophy

"One of the reasons I get along so well with Sartre is because he said "Hell is other people".

-My dad right before back-to-school night started.

Debate on Change

What I love most about rivers is
you can't step in the same river twice.
The water's always changing,
always flowing.

Today we discussed Heraclitus and Parmenides in our first debate. It was hectic! The format was structured and fast-paced, and it seemed that most of us weren't completely comfortable with it. My heart was pounding the entire time, even though I only spent a total of thirty seconds talking in front of the class. Despite the fact that the debate felt confusing and unorganized, I thought it was a great experience. I've never had to think on my feet in front of a group of people in such an environment before. Near the end, I wanted the opportunity to get up and try again.

As for the content of the debate itself, I was on team Heraclitus. Like the titular character of one of my favorite historically innacurate animated films, I find that Heraclitus's views coincide more with my own. How can a person remain the same having experienced something new and different? Each interaction I make affects who I am. I can never revert to a previous moment of being. Parmenides might rebut that although I may accumulate new thoughts and experiences, I still won't wake up a butterfly tomorrow. To me, this doesn't negate the fact that I've been changed as an individual.

Change is an intriguing and confusing topic within our culture. I think of the 2008 presidential election, when the word symbolized freedom, and improvement for many people. The concept of moving rapidly forward to something new and better was exciting. But others firmly believe that any more change in our government would lead to further decay, and that we must attempt to revert back to it's original state. We see the same idea of progression vs. regression repeated in other aspects of our society and lives. We want to move forward in our lives and community, without drifting too far from what makes us who we are.

Fear

On Thursday, we were asked to think of a time we experienced extreme paranoia. I couldn't come up with anything at first. When I was little, I was never scared of closets, white vans, or dark alleyways. They just never registered as something I should worry about.

But I did get scared a lot. Of absolutely nothing. When we were getting into line for recess, my heart would start pounding and I'd feel a hollowness in my stomach. I would be afraid to move, sure that something was about to go terribly wrong. And I got this random fear multiple times a week, so I knew that nothing was going to happen. No matter how many times I assured myself that everything was fine, I couldn't overcome the physical feeling of fear. For me, it was too strong a feeling for rationalization.

Descartes championed rationalism, while Hume believed in sensory experience. Neither philosophy seems perfectly accurate for me. All the rationalization couldn't make my emotions any less affecting, while accepting my fear never made it seem more real. All I could ever think was: This doesn't make any sense!

Sophie's World

Sophie’s World, by Jostein Gaarder, tells the history of Western Philosophy from the perspective of 15 year olds Sophie and Hilde. Although some may find this unimpressive, Gaarder sees this as the perfect way to tell his story. At the age of 15, both Sophie and Hilde are beginning to grow up, but still young, curious, and excited about the world, in contrast with adults, who have become too comfortable with their surroundings. The book aims to show its audience that philosophy is for everyone, so long as we have not been caught up in the rabbit’s fur.In the first chapter, we are introduced to Sophie Amundsen, a fairly typical teenage girl, questioning her existence and later, her world. She is intrigued by the mysterious letters she receives, which ask: “Who are you?”, and “Where does the world come from?” Although they should be relevant and interesting to every one of us, these essential questions are ignored everyday by the majority of people. Sophie’s reaction is, however, is of immediate curiosity and excitement. This contrasts strongly with typical stereotypes about teenage girls- that they are silly, shallow, and unknowledgeable, so they should not be taken seriously. Sophie is able to admit to herself that she is unknowledgeable about the answers to the questions, which only strengthens her curiosity and will to learn more.

Alberto’s first lesson for Sophie contains the metaphor of the rabbit fur, which becomes an important theme throughout the book. Alberto asks Sophie: “Is there nothing that interests us all? Is there northing that connects everyone- no matter who they are or where they live in the world?” It’s a powerful question, which shows just how unifying and central philosophy is to every one of our lives. In spite of it, we almost never really think about philosophical questions. Alberto states: “Although philosophical questions concern us all, we do not all become philosophers.” Almost every one of us becomes buried deep in the rabbit’s fur; too caught up in everyday affairs to notice how strange and wonderful our world is. The first two chapters can serve as Gaarder’s plea to the readers to think about what is truly important. We all have innate curiosity and should be thinking about big questions, although day-to-day affairs can be distracting.

The first person Gaarder shows who is caught up in the rabbit’s fur is Sophie’s mother. When Sophie asks her mom about the world and about philosophy, she is disturbed and thinks that her daughter might be on drugs. Sophie’s mom immediately brushes off every one of Sophie’s questions, as weird and uninteresting. This illustrates the idea that by the time most people reach adulthood, they take the world for granted, and lose their sense of wonder. Sophie’s mom exemplifies everything we could become if we do not question ourselves and our surroundings, and the jaded, uninspired attitudes we encounter daily.

However, Gaarder has a hopeful outcome near the end. Sophie’s mother shows great interest in meeting the philosopher, and possibly learning more. And although she doesn’t quite understand why Sophie is leaving her, she is proud of her daughter and wants what is best for her. We do not see anymore of Sophie’s mom within the book, but Alberto assures Sophie that they can come back to visit anytime. At the end of the novel, Sophie and Alberto are independent within their world, able to make their own choices and continue to learn more about how their existence. Hilde and Albert have a similar discussion about their universe. All the characters are questioning what is around them, while becoming more connected to their world.

By using the characters Sophie and Hilde, Gaarder is able to show just how relevant philosophy is to all of our lives, regardless of our position in the world. He hopes to demonstrate why we should all feel encouraged to think philosophically, and avoid being caught in the rabbit’s fur, as so many are. Every one of us has the same potential to question and to think critically and abstractly. Every one of us experiences the inexplicable forces that make our reality, our world, and ourselves.

Silence and Patience

We've been practicing meditation a lot. Each time I've found it relaxing and liberating. In complete silence, free of all distractions, just able to be. I get so exhausted with day-to-day affairs. I cherish almost every moment where I have no obligations to doing anything, to think anything, to talk to anyone.

For some reason, it wasn't like that last Friday.

For the first few minutes, I was fumbling to find a relaxing place, both physically and mentally. My mind kept drifting off on random tangents. Songs I should put in my iPod, funny stories I should tell my friends during General's Period, posts I should reblog on Tumblr, homework due over a week ago that I should really start (this post included!). I was maybe able to find 3-5 minutes of peace, when my mind became littered with trivialities again.

After awhile, it got worse. It wasn't just that I couldn't focus, but that I was frustrated, bored, and impatient. I didn't know how long we'd all been sitting here, and how much longer was left. What's the point of this anyways? Humans weren't meant to sit around in silence, isolated from the world around them. We're meant to act!

Honestly, I had a hard time coming to terms with the purpose of sitting in silence in a dark room, not thinking of anything. I guess it's okay that I couldn't attain a silent mind. But it's the things I was thinking about that disappointed me. There's nothing wrong with the thought that I should finish my homework and stop procrastinating, or that I should talk to my friends when I see them and be more social. But in that 18 minutes of freedom, I didn't come to any great understandings. I was just stuck in my day-to-day routine, the one I complain about all the time.

I wonder if I would've achieved a silent mind, or at least thought about something more interesting and important to me, had this gone on longer. Or would I have just become more impatient?

Free Reign, Free Will

For most of class today, we were without a teacher.

And everything went fairly well. The discussion went on as planned and everyone was in a good mood.

One of the most interesting questions to come up was the concept of free will. Does it exist, and do we have it? Emma asked jokingly if we had sat down to discuss Sophie's World out of our own will, or if Mr.Summers somehow had control of the whole thing? Funnily enough, Mr.Summers appeared at the door about half a minute later.

I don't know if there's any way to tell whether or not we have free will. It might not even matter. What's important is that we are happy with our decisions in life. Even with the freedom of choice, we are pressured everyday to make the "proper" one. We are told that there's a specific way to live well, one that works for everyone.

Go to school. Get good grades. Join extracurriculars and win awards and leadership positions. Make lots of friends who are interesting and diverse, but still like you. Get into a good college and get a good job.

Do whatever, it doesn't matter as long as you're happy.

At age 17, I feel that I'm getting these messages more than ever. We're getting to the point where we'll soon have to start making serious decisions about our direction in life. As excited as I am for the independence that comes with college, it's confusing. I hear everywhere that I should do what makes me happy, but the same people that say this think that there is only one way to be happy.

I have the perceived free will to stop typing right now, to leave and hide somewhere in the mountains for the rest of my life, free from societal pressures. But I don't see it happening that way. As much as I want to be independent, I want more than anything to fit in.