garden state philosophy

warning for those looking for a nice, well-crafted blog post: most of these are just scattered notes that i jotted down while re-watching Garden State the other day; at some point if i get bored enough (lol) i will get these into a coherent a lil essay perhaps..but for now, here's a few of those thoughts.
- Themes of : My generation (American Twenty-somethings, born in the 80s, raised in the 90s) suffering not from fear (1950s) or rebellion (60s) or anger (70s) or even greed (80s-90s)...instead there seems to be a prevailing culture quasi-pyschological phenomenon of what i'll call "Numbness" (see in the movie Andrew's "headaches" and his own comments about numbness) - it is this feeling of Emptiness and our attempts to satisfy these feelings that i believe will truly define my generation more than perhaps any other quality or issue; compare our use of drugs today versus 15, 20, 30 years ago -- so many of us have been prescribed (or otherwise inclined or obligated) to somehow synthesize happiness with neuropharmeucticals (think Prozak and friends) - there was even a direct reference in the movie to Huxley's Brave New World, to prove my point (more on that later)...
We hate the hypocricy of our current religious environment, and many decry the existence of God (or any higher being for that matter) - but yet it is difficult to deny that many do in fact wish that He (or Someone like Him) did exist, and somehow cared about our petty, insignificant lives (a concept that many find too fantastical or good to be true) - think about Andrew's character and his semi-religious perspective vs. Sam's agnostic-pragmatic view that "this is all we have."
our friendships are both a blessing and a curse, as we crave companionship and people who can "understand" - but are so often ultimately disappointed because our natural human flaws. (see Andrew's old friends)
we desire so much to be unique, to be different, to carve a name for ourselves - but we have a generation or two above us (our parents) who for the most part push on us little more than mediocre and "safe" ambitions and goals (the best intentions not withstanding - see in the movie Andrew's dad!)
we are misunderstood very often.
our parental relationships, which are so critical, and which deep down each one of us wishes was as good as possible - are too often dysfunctional and badly flawed. Dads are endangered species. (see Andrew's overbearing/misguided father, Sam's lack of a father altogether). Mothers are too worn out to truly be able to reach out and offer the hug that each of us, regardless of our age, occupation, or gender, truly needs sometimes.
we need hugs.
we misunderstand ourselves sometimes, and spend so much of our life confused as to what it is that we really want, where it is that we really want to go, and who exactly we should be.
in relationships, we can desire to find That person, who we can be safe with, who we can - no matter where we are- enjoy the feeling of "home" with - but we have no idea how to find that person, and mix up sexual frustration with deep-set desires for true intimacy.
there is a saying "we laugh because we cannot cry." i think for many of us, we get to a point of numbness, a point of "routine" if you will, that allows for neither laughing or crying. We desperately want a reason to do both (see Sam's comments to Andrew in the bar).
to be continued...
i'll talk about Zach Braff's analogy that love is letting someone blow their nose on your sleeve ;-).... i know, i'm a tease... :)

ambition

i want to be great.
not Great - with an impressive title, or the adoration of my peers...
but great...taking advantage of the opportunities to rise above the chronic mediocrity of my world, my society...grasping hold of the concept of leading by example, and leading by service...
during job interviews, i've been asked the question in various forms regarding what i ultimately want to do in life - what am i striving for?
i want greatness. to be able to achieve what has yet to be grasped, to make a difference in a way that has never before been done.
greatness.

Hegel once postulated that that human history has been driven by our desire for recognition; Francis Fukuyama argued that the unstoppable movement of liberal democracy was the final frontier in this regards because it provided the best means for individual recognition.....regardless of whether you buy into the "End of History" theories, the observation about our desire and need of recognition remains valid.... to me, these philosophers are inadvertently agreeing with a very basic relationship/psychology principle about human nature

"Never forget how much you are loved and admired."
"To be manifestly loved, to be openly admired are human needs as basic as breathing. Why, then, wanting them so much ourselves, do we deny them so often to others?" - both from Arthur Gordon's "A Touch of Wonder."

What a deceptively simple concept this is! And yet I'm almost embarrassed at how little I have shown affection for those closest to me over the past few years. I know in my own life the incredible value that a simple word or act of encouragement or understanding can bring.

oh leo...

two posts in one day...exciting, no? :-)...this is actually from a fantastic email exchange i had over the break, so this is a, um, recycled mini-post....:-)

...going to back to War and Peace, I think I might have found one of the most significant parts in the whole novel– near the beginning of Part Three, Tolstoy writes “Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action. ‘The king’s heart is in the hands of the Lord.’ A king is history’s slave. History, that is the unconscious, general, swarm-life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.”
At first glance, I felt almost as if Tolstoy was stating the obvious – of course every thing we do has a ripple effect/chain-reaction that is much broader and deeper than might at first be evident – this is an idea that has been brought up and re-hashed for ages (e.g., the rather odd movie “The Butterfly Effect” that came out a few years ago). However, after some thought, and then reading the following Tolstoy quote (“Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary, and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.”), I realize that there is something much more profound at work in Tolstoy’s historical “philosophy,” particularly his emphasis on the role of individuals in positions of power, and the thought-provoking concept of being an “unconscious” part in a movement/process whose goal or main end is simply impossible to ascertain."

whew. this deserves a follow up too. dang it. i've already got homework assignments for my blog ;-).

a brave new world?

currently reading Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" for Crowe's Public Policy class...i read it junior year and found it interesting, but its been more enlightening so far this second time around. Some thoughts from Fukuyama's first chapter struck me last night. He states that the "aim of this book is to argue that Huxley ["Brave New World"] was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a "posthuman" stage of history. This is important...because human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experience as a species. It is, conjointly with religion, what defines our most basic values" (p.7).
This is a very serious claim being made by Mr. Fukuyama, and I can not even begin to give it justice through a simple blog. I will note though, that Fukuyama includes within human nature both the good and the bad, the desirable and the undesirable. Feeling lonely or depressed, experiencing pain and suffering, are all qualities of human nature that at our deepest roots each one of us would earnestly like to be freed from. But to accept human nature as being vital and worth preserving, Fukuyama argues that we are in essence accepting these bad qualities along with the feelings of love, happiness, and so forth. Attempting to eliminate the undesirable qualities from human nature could prove to be disastrous - Fukuyama points to Huxley's "Brave New World" and notes that the "happiness" and "health" that the people experience is in fact soul-less and empty. They abdicated their status as humans for the sake of a freakishly hollow "paradise."
I'm not quite sure exactly what i think about this... while i agree completely that a comprehensive acceptance of the existence of a unique "human nature" will have to include the good and the undesirable (pain, loneliness, etc.), and also that there are potentially dangerous tendencies that are inherent with biotechnological advances...i'm not sure if i should look with suspicion at every new advance in pharmacology - is there a "middle ground"?.... i might analyze this more later, in addition to possibly discussing a little about the role of "modernity" (modern science, modern philosophy, etc.) in our changing perception about nature....
...and to think - this was just from the first 8 pages of Fukuyama's book - its going to be an interesting semester....

Well its a brand new year, a new semester ... and a new blog...LOL. Not really, but I really have wanted to revive this blog - for some reason this one just feels more "serious" than xanga *shrugs*...so I shall put a little more effort into this one....
seeing as how class awaits me in just a few moments, I'll have to post more later on. Briefly though, here's a question that I have been pondering since hearing it for the first time yesterday (from "Who Moved My Cheese?," an odd, but rather thought-provoking little inspirational work): "What would you do if you weren't afraid?" ... look past its simplistic initial appearance and I hope that you will realize that this is truly a soul-searching question. How am I being held back by fear? There are so many limitations that I have unconsciously placed on myself because of fear...