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...

A late nite poem

couldn't resist! a t.s. eliot poem!

THE BROAD-BACKED hippopotamus
Rests on his belly in the mud;
Although he seems so firm to us
He is merely flesh and blood.
Flesh and blood is weak and frail,	5
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock.
The hippo’s feeble steps may err
In compassing material ends,	10
While the True Church need never stir
To gather in its dividends.
The ’potamus can never reach
The mango on the mango-tree;
But fruits of pomegranate and peach	15
Refresh the Church from over sea.
At mating time the hippo’s voice
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,
But every week we hear rejoice
The Church, at being one with God.	20
The hippopotamus’s day
Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts;
God works in a mysterious way—
The Church can sleep and feed at once.
I saw the ’potamus take wing	25
Ascending from the damp savannas,
And quiring angels round him sing
The praise of God, in loud hosannas.
Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean
And him shall heavenly arms enfold,	30
Among the saints he shall be seen
Performing on a harp of gold.
He shall be washed as white as snow,
By all the martyr’d virgins kist,
While the True Church remains below	35
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

back again....

Hey... After a semester-long hiatus from the blog-community, I am returning.... finals are this week, so i should actually have time to post.....
first and foremost thought - rest in peace, dr. amy jo johnson.... you will be sorely missed, probably more than you ever would have known.... berry has lost one of its best, and there really is no true way to replace such a loss....