We are a society that loves leisure.
To the point where we've forgotten that we need to work first in order to survive.
The fruit of our labor and the food, clothing, and shelter that come from that labor have been so far removed from each other that we are not alive when we work and we do not feel connected to the labor we do. The money we get is a means to play, even when we don't actually have the time to play.
Life is whittled away for short-term, meaningless pleasures that leave us feeling empty and a little older than before. Before we know it, we are no longer capable of learning, of growing, or of deriving truly meaningful encounters and experiences.
Are the games we play, the TV shows we watch, and all the little things we do to waste time really worth it?
But then, on the flip side, why should we feel so guilty doing the things that we enjoy?
Is it because we are not contributing to society or bettering ourselves?
If we seek out leisure that does not enhance our being, is there something wrong with that?
I think the issue is that in the end, as individuals, one is often left feeling worse than before by doing things that do not engage the mind or better oneself. It's always in retrospect that regret kicks in and one can be found saying,
"I had all the time in the world but I didn't..."
"I could have done .... instead of ...."
I suppose it goes back to the idea of carpe diem or the ever-so-ridiculous YOLO.
Claim the day as ours, looking into the future so that we look back without regrets.*
*It's so funny how this statement as well as carpe diem and YOLO become justifications to do dumb things. One may live as if one will die tomorrow, but the changes of that happening is low. So many people live to see another day. Therefore, one must necessarily live with the future in mind in all that one does.
Like duh.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Confused
So from what I understand about Mizzou, I agree with what happened as justifiable and I'm glad that the president had to step down. However, I'm really confused about what's going on at Yale.
If I'm translating the situation correctly, students want an apology (which escalated to a resignation) from two resident professors because the two professors were not only trying to create an intellectual community that questioned why rules about costumes had to come from an authoritarian figure, but also because they were trying to address the students' concerns about an email and create a dialogue about it? And the students were demanding that professors apologize for hurting their feelings. That doesn't make sense to me at all.
I don't understand how that created an unsafe space. Views can be challenged...? Why should one feel unsafe about a disagreement? Doesn't that speak to one's on insecurities as a person? If one cannot take the fact that someone is questioning who one is, doesn't that mean that one should learn to understand and accept one's own identity first? If someone questions my identity, I simply tell them who I am. They can think whatever they want about me; I'm still me and none of that will change. I don't understand how creating an intellectual space about why the school has to police costumes turns into a debate about race. I really don't.
I suppose if the premise is that the students respected the decision of the university to create the rules on what acceptable and unacceptable costumes are, the fact that a resident professor would even question that would be... outrageous? Even in the name of intellectual exploration? Even though the resident professor made it abundantly clear that she agreed that such costumes shouldn't be allowed? If college isn't a place to be able to express one's individuality and one's thoughts, regardless of what it is, then where can an independent mind learn to do such things?But the flip side also becomes this: should such "policing" (in this case, of costumes) be done by the students?
If students feel too young or immature (and accept themselves to be as such), then I suppose they could then accept the fact that some higher authority needs to make the rules for them. They want to avoid policing themselves/each other; thus, it is easier to have someone else (of authority) to do it for them so that they can avoid awkward confrontations. I'm guessing that's the mentality?
For some reason, it still doesn't seem to make sense. And if anything, it sounds somewhat selfish (I don't want to have to deal with it) and immature (I'll just have someone else do it for me).
Is this what the new generation considers to be a valuable quality for society? I suppose the later generation was (is?) all about questioning authority. For them, it is always this questioning: "who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do" and "I will do what I want, when I want, and however I want to do it."
The next generation wants it to be all about them. "I don't feel safe. I feel offended. You can't say that to me. Do you know who I am? I am marginalized, revere me!" (Okay, so revere is a bit of an extreme word but in some ways, it really isn't.)
I don't know. Let us see what comes of it.
The article that made me think of all this is below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Oh, and to add to that is a response from Yale's president and dean of Yale College:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/yale-leaders-re-affirm-their-commitment-to-diversity-and-debate/
I think the most insightful is the following:
"We also affirm Yale’s bedrock principle of the freedom to speak and be heard, without fear of intimidation, threats, or harm, and we renew our commitment to this freedom not as a special exception for unpopular or controversial ideas but for them especially."
Why do I feel sympathy for the professor, who is literally surrounded by students rather than the screaming girl who demands and literally screams at the professor to apologize. If I were the professor, I would feel the "fear of intimidation, threats, or harm." Especially being surrounded by students like that. In this particular case, I don't think it has anything to do with race. What I see are petulant, stressed out students venting their frustrations at a professor who is trying to help them.
For the video, see below:
There are other clips of him trying to reason with these students. He's trying to talk with them and I feel like all they see is this white man in a position of power trying to put them down when he's trying to create an open dialogue with them. It doesn't make sense to me.
If I'm translating the situation correctly, students want an apology (which escalated to a resignation) from two resident professors because the two professors were not only trying to create an intellectual community that questioned why rules about costumes had to come from an authoritarian figure, but also because they were trying to address the students' concerns about an email and create a dialogue about it? And the students were demanding that professors apologize for hurting their feelings. That doesn't make sense to me at all.
I don't understand how that created an unsafe space. Views can be challenged...? Why should one feel unsafe about a disagreement? Doesn't that speak to one's on insecurities as a person? If one cannot take the fact that someone is questioning who one is, doesn't that mean that one should learn to understand and accept one's own identity first? If someone questions my identity, I simply tell them who I am. They can think whatever they want about me; I'm still me and none of that will change. I don't understand how creating an intellectual space about why the school has to police costumes turns into a debate about race. I really don't.
I suppose if the premise is that the students respected the decision of the university to create the rules on what acceptable and unacceptable costumes are, the fact that a resident professor would even question that would be... outrageous? Even in the name of intellectual exploration? Even though the resident professor made it abundantly clear that she agreed that such costumes shouldn't be allowed? If college isn't a place to be able to express one's individuality and one's thoughts, regardless of what it is, then where can an independent mind learn to do such things?But the flip side also becomes this: should such "policing" (in this case, of costumes) be done by the students?
If students feel too young or immature (and accept themselves to be as such), then I suppose they could then accept the fact that some higher authority needs to make the rules for them. They want to avoid policing themselves/each other; thus, it is easier to have someone else (of authority) to do it for them so that they can avoid awkward confrontations. I'm guessing that's the mentality?
For some reason, it still doesn't seem to make sense. And if anything, it sounds somewhat selfish (I don't want to have to deal with it) and immature (I'll just have someone else do it for me).
Is this what the new generation considers to be a valuable quality for society? I suppose the later generation was (is?) all about questioning authority. For them, it is always this questioning: "who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do" and "I will do what I want, when I want, and however I want to do it."
The next generation wants it to be all about them. "I don't feel safe. I feel offended. You can't say that to me. Do you know who I am? I am marginalized, revere me!" (Okay, so revere is a bit of an extreme word but in some ways, it really isn't.)
I don't know. Let us see what comes of it.
The article that made me think of all this is below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
Oh, and to add to that is a response from Yale's president and dean of Yale College:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/yale-leaders-re-affirm-their-commitment-to-diversity-and-debate/
I think the most insightful is the following:
"We also affirm Yale’s bedrock principle of the freedom to speak and be heard, without fear of intimidation, threats, or harm, and we renew our commitment to this freedom not as a special exception for unpopular or controversial ideas but for them especially."
Why do I feel sympathy for the professor, who is literally surrounded by students rather than the screaming girl who demands and literally screams at the professor to apologize. If I were the professor, I would feel the "fear of intimidation, threats, or harm." Especially being surrounded by students like that. In this particular case, I don't think it has anything to do with race. What I see are petulant, stressed out students venting their frustrations at a professor who is trying to help them.
For the video, see below:
There are other clips of him trying to reason with these students. He's trying to talk with them and I feel like all they see is this white man in a position of power trying to put them down when he's trying to create an open dialogue with them. It doesn't make sense to me.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Innovations in education
I feel like the shift in education is about engaging students in a way that helps them to learn. I think it's quite an ideal shift but I think that we've perhaps forgotten why students need to be engaged to begin with.
In some ways, I feel like what is taught in classrooms and how it applies to the outside world is so disconnected that students don't feel motivated to learn. They don't see the purpose of what they learn because they don't see how it can apply to their daily lives. I think that in showing the practical applications to learning, students will have at least a smidgen more of interest than thinking "this is something I have to do. I don't know why I have to do this, but I somehow should feel the importance of it." This abstraction of the importance of education discourages students because there's all this weight put on it, but when students ask why they have to learn chemistry, often times, teachers and parents have a hard time answering. To say it'll open up opportunities disregards the fact that long-term success seldom works on students. To the ambitious and the driven, such answers will suffice. However, the reasons given for education/learning are very much like the reasoning for working out. It focuses on the long term results: "you'll live longer"; "it's better for you in the long run"; "you'll eventually have a nicer body in the far away future after blood, sweat, and tears." However, often times the short-term gratification of not doing schoolwork will outweigh the long-term promise of success.
While I think there's quite a bit of good work being done out there to motivate and engage students, I think that perhaps the reason why we even have to start doing this should be examined.
In some ways, I feel like what is taught in classrooms and how it applies to the outside world is so disconnected that students don't feel motivated to learn. They don't see the purpose of what they learn because they don't see how it can apply to their daily lives. I think that in showing the practical applications to learning, students will have at least a smidgen more of interest than thinking "this is something I have to do. I don't know why I have to do this, but I somehow should feel the importance of it." This abstraction of the importance of education discourages students because there's all this weight put on it, but when students ask why they have to learn chemistry, often times, teachers and parents have a hard time answering. To say it'll open up opportunities disregards the fact that long-term success seldom works on students. To the ambitious and the driven, such answers will suffice. However, the reasons given for education/learning are very much like the reasoning for working out. It focuses on the long term results: "you'll live longer"; "it's better for you in the long run"; "you'll eventually have a nicer body in the far away future after blood, sweat, and tears." However, often times the short-term gratification of not doing schoolwork will outweigh the long-term promise of success.
While I think there's quite a bit of good work being done out there to motivate and engage students, I think that perhaps the reason why we even have to start doing this should be examined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)