Moral Vicissitude
Can a forced ideology be called morality?
What I am concerned with here when I say “forced ideology” is when an individual accepts an ideology because they were told to do so, whether this is from a personal authority figure, such as a parent, or something or someone more systemic, such as the military commander for drafted soldiers. This should be contrasted to an ideology one rationally accepts, based on knowledge and self-reflection. There is, of course, a very grey area here which is not easy to define, but I am currently most interested in a strong understanding of forced ideology.
If a person does a “good” act based on a belief system which they have not rationally accepted, is the act really good? Or is the person good/moral? If a child makes a conscience effort to not lie on Christmas Eve for fear of not getting presents from Santa (assuming the child has something to gain from lieing), has the child done good?
My instinct tells me no, the act is not necessarily morally good. One may argue that refraining from lieing is an objective moral good and the intent plays no part. I, however, cannot agree with this. Discarding the objective/subjective arguments of morality for another day, I cannot believe actions should be divorced so coldly from intent.
At issue for me is “good” actions which are more based on routine or dogma as opposed to rational choice or desire. However, it seems that this thought has implications on “evil” actions as well. If blind acceptance to an ideology devalues the “good” of an action, then it must devalue the “evil” of an action.
If giving to the poor because you are told to do so is not a morally good action, then what about a solider who kills because he is told to do so? Or perhaps to make it even more stark, what about a man who rapes a virgin for purification?
I have too strong an emotional response to such evil deeds and too strong a belief in individual responsibility to accept that. But I have to admit that I do feel that the good acts are devalued because of this. Perhaps this is just faulty thinking on my part, but I think it simply leads to a better conclusion.
It is blind acceptance that is the problem. I believe that blind acceptance is intellectually criminal. Individuals must have a personal and reasoned system of beliefs or they do not really have a belief system. One of the real tests of a person’s character is how they act compared to what they believe in. Those with a void for a true belief system (or an understood belief system) often find themselves doing things or acting in ways contrary to their ideology. Or they act accordingly to their ideology but are miserable in the process.
Blind acceptance is an individual choice. You might even say (in fact, I do) that it is a moral choice. Not accepting responsibility for your beliefs or your actions does not make those beliefs or actions justifiable.
It just makes them stupid.
What’s with the hygiene?
So I have been trolling internet dating sites trying to get an idea of what people “out there” are looking for and how they sell themselves. It has been quite an interesting adventure.
For the most part, it is what I assumed. A lot of people, men and women, have very bland, shallow, and non-descriptive profiles. “Gosh, I’m just a down to earth [gender], who takes it easy and likes to have a good time! I’m looking for someone who is honest, funny, and no drama!” Tell me, really, who is not looking for these things? To me, that is one of the things that gets me every time I read this stuff. Do you really think it’s going to make a difference or, perhaps, net someone who you really want to meet?
The impression I get that people seem to go off the idea that pictures will sell everything. At least, that is the assumption I am making off of: 1) the lack of depth to profiles and 2) my cynical view of the unwashed masses. And I am sure that people go hunting profiles based off of this. Now, do not get me wrong. Physical attraction IS important–I mean, it is not really a relationship without that. But unless you really do want to just party and/or have sex, there really should be more to it than that
Trying to play devil’s advocate, the process of selling yourself like a piece of meat online is not necessarily comfortable or easy. If you commit to the process, you have to open yourself up a little bit (and, perhaps, have an understanding of yourself). And I think there can be a lot of better matching coming from something like that process . . . but so many people seem to move the club/bar/etc hook up to this arena and I think it shows. I do not think there is anything wrong with meeting people at the bar or club… I mean, it’s one reason to go to those places and, frankly, it is fun. But, at least from my perspective, meeting the “right” person in that setting takes a shit ton of luck.
Anyways, the thing that got me down this line of thought is that as I’ve read profiles, I have noticed a lot of women have added “good hygiene” to their list of qualities in the people they would like to meet.
Really?
And not really as in “you like hygiene?!” but really as in “you have to say that?” I really have to wonder what the guys out there are doing to make this an issue. It actually makes me wonder if I’ve got something going on I do not know about. I also wonder what this means. Is this like a “how often do you brush your teeth, ugh!” or a “could you shower after the game?” I play hockey and, honestly, that’s a gross sport. You sweat like crazy and you’ve got all kinds of padding to soak it up and keep it close to home for all time. I’m sure other sports are bad, too. But, yeah, I keep my stuff clean and I shower. Often.
It just really makes me wonder . . .
The most important news is…
Britney’s Teen Sister Jamie Lynn Spears is Pregnant!
Okay. Let’s stop for a second.
Really? This is what is important?
When this “news” broke, it was the headline on most American news outlets. I was literally beat upside the head about it and I try to avoid “entertainment” news as much as I can, but this story seemed to be inescapable (and continues to be).
So a 16 year old girl got pregnant. Weeeeird. That never happens. Oh, wait, no, that’s right: it happens ALL the time. The shock and surprise is… really amazing. What I do not understand is what the shock is really about. I mean, is it because she a star? A “role” model? She meets the cookie cutter definition of attractive? Because her sister is falling apart and it is fun to watch the house continue to burn down?
It just makes me livid that it is such a big deal when it happens to this one person (they are talking about making a show about it already!). People need to open their eyes and wake up–our kids are having kids and the way we are dealing with it is only making it grow. We have a culture that has one part of it’s foundation in selling sex and another in repressing it. Kids are smart enough to realize how stupid the repression part is, too naive to understand the commercialization of sex, and rebellious enough not to listen by the time anyone starts talking to them (perhaps talking to them as a real person, too). A very fertile mix, it turns out.
With this and other such stories, I just get so angry when something which highlights the normal state of things happens and suddenly it’s a big deal–but instead of actually dealing with the problem, there is a knee jerk reaction to dealing with it which never works and no long term thinking happens. And, of course, it is then quickly forgotten. I already can not wait to be tired of seeing stories about how to deal with teenage pregnancy, and I already can not wait to be suddenly surprised when I stop seeing the stories.
Scott’s first game back
Wow, what a difference Scott makes.
He’s not the holy grail as evidenced by the fact that the Ducks lost the game tonight in a shoot out, but the boy can play. But, not only can he play, he can lead. He is obviously a motivator and I saw him often talking to the other players or officials. It was great.
Something really amazing about Niedermayer is his passing ability. He seems to always be able to put the puck exactly where it needs to go at exactly the right time and speed. Several times in the evening I saw Parros end up with puck, looking confused how it got there and why he might have it.
The bottom line is the Ducks really stepped up today. There are some new hands on deck and they were a little rusty, but the Ducks are here to play.
Me
I wrote this as an exercise in self exploration and have been butchering it to put in different profiles. Enjoy:
Does the turbulence ever upset you?
Life is a bumpy ride and I’m one cantankerous passenger.
I am thinker, leader, ranter, writer, actor. I am not interested in the status quo, I am interested in making things better. I struggle with the definition of normality, but what I know for sure that is it should not be complacency, laziness, or ignorance. I despise those who do not understand this. Individualism is being lost in a sea of selfish hedonism and the irony is almost too much to handle at times.
I have strong views which I enjoy sharing with anyone who will listen, but I do not believe on forcing those views on anyone. One of the best things in life is a good conversation. Or maybe a good debate. I am highly empathetic and other’s emotions can bowl me over like a steam roller. There are very few characteristics I appreciate more than a person who thinks.
I am not a fan of either/or, black/white type of thinking. I believe that one of the great things about life is the shades of grey which makes up the bulk of the human experience. It seems to be a natural process for the human mind to attempt to categorize things to make them better understandable–I will not attempt to deny that–but I think this can be overdone. My normal philosophical punching bag on this topic is stereotypes. I hate stereotypes. I think people can and should be judged as individuals.
I have been told in the past that I am “brutally honest.” I do not know if I agree with that, but I aim to be honest and straight forward. No time in life for playing games with people or being passive-aggressive. To that end, I can come off as arrogant and a know-it-all. I always have an answer and I am frustratingly right most of the time. I try to remember those can be bad things (but generally fail).
I’m a tech geek and a fantasy dork. I love technology in real life and play with it often. I love fantasy in my mindless reading and like to quietly pretend I would enjoy the life of a medieval assassin.
I typically dislike sports, but I discovered I really enjoy hockey. Not because there is fighting (there is not as much as you think). Not because it is brutal (it is not as brutal as you think it is). I enjoy hockey because it is: fast, highly skilled, and the true embodiment of a team effort. And, yeah, there is fighting and it is brutal.
I work, and work hard, but there is more to life than work. I play hockey. I have performed in a regular-running “Whose line is it anyways?” style improv show. I have a blog that I have been writing on for longer than some people have used the internet. I have owned my own business. I read more books on philosophy and religion than is probably healthy.
I find that the best way to approach life is a combination of humor, honesty, passion, just-enough-cynicism, and a level of intellectual analysis that would cause a psychologist to blush.
Are you ready to think?
Ducks trade AndyMac
When Scott announced he was coming back, I looked around and said “Beauchemin or McDonald are the most at risk.”
Sadly, how true I was.
Andy McDonald was traded to the Blues today for Doug Weight (not a bad pick up), a minor leaguer, and a 7th round pick. In addition, Doug Weight is a UFA at the end of the year, so the stupid salary cap stuff is not an issue.
Read more: http://ducks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=346678
Niedermayer Is Back!
Well, it was a wait, but a wait that was well worth it. Scott Niedermayer has announced he is returning. It will take him 7-10 to get into NHL condition. We’ll have to see how long it takes for him to get to NHL playing level.
From the Ducks: http://ducks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=345558
The Ducks announced today that defenseman Scott Niedermayer will return to the team for the remainder of the season.
Niedermayer, 34 (8/31/73), helped lead the Ducks to their first Stanley Cup championship last season, winning the Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player of the 2007 playoffs. With 15-54=69 points in 79 regular season games last year, Niedermayer became the first Duck to lead NHL defensemen in scoring, a career first. A finalist for the James Norris Memorial Trophy (top NHL defenseman) and 2007 Western Conference All-Star, he set career highs in goals, assists and points, breaking his own club single-season records in assists and points from the previous campaign.
“I’m excited to be rejoining my teammates and getting back on the ice,” said Niedermayer. “I would like to thank the Samuelis, Brian Burke and especially my teammates for their patience while I wrestled with this very difficult decision.”
Ahh, the holidays.
How I hate thee. Let me count the ways.
Well, before I do that, let me take a moment to explain. I think it has been a while.
I am not the type of person who gets the typical holiday blues (well, typical for those who get it). Honestly, I couldn’t quite tell you what the “typical” holiday blues are, but I imagine they have something to do with a lot of alcohol, shouting obscenities late at night, a black eye, and probably some jail time. My assumption is that a lot of people are really just unhappy and the holidays just give them that extra nudge over the precipice.
For me, the “holidays” represent a lot of things that I do not really like about people and society. I mean, really, are you telling me that we have to take a moment each year and say “Hey, maybe you should be nice?” Joy to the world and all that sham. I guess it’s much easier to be amenable to sitting next to the fire and not fighting when it is freezing outside. The point is that there are many supposed ideals which are highlighted at this time that I believe if people took truly to heart would be things that they believed in, well, all the time. I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with taking a moment to highlight certain things to get people thinking about them, but I really feel a lot of the marketed holidays are just shams.
Maybe it’s the consumerism associated with them. The gift giving just makes me sick. It is not that I am against giving gifts. I love giving gifts. The issue for me is being told / expected to give gifts. I can no longer count the number of times that throughout the year, I have given someone a gift because I genuinely wanted to (”Hey, you did something to remind me what a great friend you are and I wanted to say thanks”, “Hey, I found [X] which I though you would really like and here it is!”, etc.) but failed to do so at an alloted time and had an eye of ire turned on me. Not cool.
I was talking with a friend about this who noted that some people feel uncomfortable with getting gifts at unexpected times–it is easier to give them at expected times because people understand how to deal with it. I guess. The problem, in my mind, is that this highlights a bigger problem with our society at large. One of the things also discussed in our conversation is that people also feel the need to reciprocate, especially for unexpected gifts. I do not know if I agree with that, but if it is the case, I think with time individual people can learn to deal with individual gifts. Especially if you make it clear that there is not an expectation of return. But, in my mind, you can generally point to something and say “Hey, THAT’s why I am giving you the gift. Don’t give me anything back. DEAL.” If they truly feel like they have to give you something back then, well, be thankful as well.
Optimism, Pessimism, and the ever forgotten Realism
Those who have followed my ramblings over the years know that I am not a fan of either/or, black/white type of thinking. I believe that one of the great things about life is the shades of grey which makes up the bulk of the human experience. It seems to be a natural process for the human mind to attempt to categorize things to make them better understandable–I will not attempt to deny that–but I think this can be overdone. My normal psychological punching bag on this topic is stereotypes. Honestly, do not get me started on stereotypes.
Yet, another area where I find general fault with the slice of humanity I interact with (whether in person, in writing, or in observation) is the ideas of optimism and pessimism. I like to think of myself as a realist–I try my best to think of things as not the best or worst case scenarios. I, like anyone, cannot be perfect in this (but, perfection is just another black/white extreme, in my opinion). However, I am amazingly confronted by people who will label an action or a thought of mine as “optimistic” or “pessimistic” because it does not fit with a particular outcome or the personal view of the other person.
For example, if someone has a better expectation for the outcome of a situation and I take a moment to think about alternative outcomes, I have been told that I should not be pessimistic. Often, I get really taken back because I do not feel like I am being pessimistic, I am just trying to make sure I have a realistic expectation. When I sit down to think more about, I can generally think of ways that I could be truly pessimistic. This happens the other way too (”Oh, you’re just an optimist”). If I were to believe what people say in these situations, I would have to assume I am either manic-depressive or absolutely insane. I do not believe I am either of those things, so I assume there are other answers.
Let’s take a closer look at the ideas of optimism and pessimism. As technical terms, these words have some very specific meanings which in the usage in common vernacular seems to have oversimplified. In the study of religion, a religion or group which is identified as pessimistic does not believe that life is kind of crappy and people are pretty mean. It means that the religion identifies the world as a truly evil place, where the hearts of men are black by nature, and only by the intervention of a divine being–perhaps even the physical destruction of the world and people–can redemption can be had. You can assume something as similarly opposite for optimism.
Psychologically, this term also has a technical meaning–a pessimist is a person who truly believes in the worst. When one meets a true pessimist, one knows. These people are truly draining and truly unable to deal with the world–and truly rare. But I guess it is easier to say that someone who is depressed or generally surly is a “pessimist.”
What I am trying to figure out is if these are appropriate in relation to specific situations? Can someone be pessimistic about, say, their relationship but be optimistic, say, about their job? It seems like an easy thing to do right? Someone does not see something in the brightest of lights and so you say “Hey, don’t be such an pessimist!” Here is my problem, though. I think at some level, pessimism (or optimism) does have a meaning to people and it can influence how one interprets actions or situations. I think there is a difference between being “negative” and being a “pessimist.”
Moreover, I think there is a difference between those and beings realistic. “This might not work” (realism) is different than “this won’t work” (negative) is different than “this can never work” (pessimism). I worry that when “this might not work” is heard as “this can never work” because the listener equates anything which can be interpreted as negative with pessimism.
Russian Doomsday Cult
I have been very lax in my study of religion of late. It turns out that when you have assignments and constant pressure that comes with grad school, it’s much easier for it to be hobby. I’m going to file that under ironic and move on. My focus when I was actively working on my Master’s Degree was apocalyptic cults. This is a subject I am very interested in and the recent news of a Russian doomsday cult has really sparked my interest again. Hopefully I can fan that into a real flame of interest.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/16/doomsday.cult/index.html
What I find most interesting about this incident is that the leader is no longer with the group. He’s been arrestd and undergoing “psychiatric evaluation.” He told the group to hole up in their self built cave and they are doing it. One of the reasons I find this interest has to do what what a “cult” is and how it is formed. Or, rather, how hard it is to define those things. Like many things with religion, defining what makes something a cult is generally a subjective affair. Most often, a descriptive definition is used. I.e. a cult is something that has x, y, and z characteristics. For example, one might say that a cult does not have mainstream acceptance. However, there are people who call Mormonism a cult, yet it clearly has mass appeal. Even better, others, such as myself, would not agree that mainstream acceptance is a characteristic at all.
However, one that is widely adopted in this method of defining a cult is charismatic leadership. The Branch Dividians had David Koresh, Christianity had Paul, and the Insane Clown Posse have Violent J. One theory about containing/controlling cult behavior (if you would choose to do so) is that if you take out the leader, you take out the cult. I do not believe things are that black and white, but the theory is probably a good rule of thumb.
So, then, what kind of control did Kuznetsov have that his followers continue their practices and follow his commandments even after he is gone? They apparently communicating with him via letters but are mistrustful that he may be under the control of the authorities. It makes me think that a new leader has emerged with the remaining members that allows them to hold strong to their beliefs. If this is true, it poses an interesting twist to the idea of a charismatic leader’s role within a cult. It also shows one of the things at the root of cult behavior: a cult is sociological based “thing” which is guided by principles of the relationships between members more than the philosophical doctrine they supposedly cling to.
