X

For such an interesting time in my life, I'm glad I've found a book that adds just that much more complexity to my thoughts.  The Autobiography of Malcolm X is probably one of the greatest (philosophy) books that I have read thus far simply because it's a guide to why and what Mr. X feels.  When hearing why someone feels the way the do, it eliminates all disrespect, close-mindedness and bias from my opinions on their feelings.  This was the only way that Mr. X could have gone about writing this book and sharing his story, simply because it's so different from any other person's experience, and very different from the popular philosophy as well.  Without people relating to a theory that is not backed up very clearly, it provides no paved path to taking what is being displayed into consideration.  So that's my opinion on the format of the book.
The context of the book is something that nobody can really read and forget.  Reading everything he has to say about his life makes me understand completely where his thoughts developed from, but I still don't agree with them.  I am aware of the time period, setting, all of that, but in no situation is it okay to call the "enemy" the devil in a serious matter.  The only thing this can lead to is even more hatred in a society... the last thing America needed.  It's also very unfair to those people who are making a conscious effort to work against the oppressions, and it will ultimately lead to nobody wanting to fight for peace, equality and the rightful treatment of others.
I'm also very opposed to the idea that one's suffering is brought upon them by others.  Yes, there are those people (or groups of people) who are actually out to get you, but the point is to figure out how to overcome the adversities and thrive regardless.  That's life.  Once you start to blame others for the things that happen to you, there is no growth.  It leads to excuse after excuse after excuse, until everything is taken from you.  I believe that Mr. X had some grasp on this idea, but he wasn't presenting it to those who followed him.  This was a dangerous path to run, especially while promoting the idea of violence and rebellion.
One thing I can't understand is Mr. X's subtle constant need to have someone to look up to.  This leads me to believe that he doesn't like being in total control of situations, even his own.  He is very influenced, but this characteristic has helped him relate to the others blacks who have been "brainwashed" their whole lives.  It kind of seems like he's working off of what "White America" has produced... interesting...

Is King Still King?

Who said he ever was? When I think of a king, I think of a man sitting in an engulfing chair with a purple, velvet robe on and topped off with a sparkling crown.  Martin Luther King Jr. was never one to have this image, simply because he was one of the people.  He walked, talked and agreed with them.  He had the same vision as many others living in America, the only difference was that he knew how to gather a crowd, and then how to continue their passionate ideas.  Being a preacher, King knew how to reach out to people and relate to them.  He spoke his vision of peace, integration and equality: others responded quite well to his tactics.  With the help of sit-ins and peace marches, King helped change America forever.
Now, because of King's and his followers' efforts, the world is a different place.  We are legally allowed to sit next to someone that looks completely different from us, and we can legally talk to whomever we please.  Although an amazing transformation has taken place, not everyone has taken the messages spewed by King in the same way.  Some have branched off and took King's message as an excuse to promote their own "kind", while others have truly worked to get rid of all prejudice present in society.  Personally, I believe that King's message was meant to be taken in the latter direction.  By equality, I believe that King didn't want race to even be a quality looked upon and judged by others.  He recognized that one's skin color is simply a pigment of their skin... if he didn't he wouldn't have given his life for equality and fair treatment of all.
When I get on the subject of equality, I think of certain government programs (such as Affirmative Action) that completely dismiss King's message.  I understand why the program was implemented, and I believe that it was a crucial, and helpful, program that helped level the playing field for all races and schools.  Although it was an extremely useful program, I believe that with the continued implementation of programs such as this, people will still have the notion in their mind that minorities do need the extra help in order to achieve the same as White people.  This seems absolutely ridiculous to me.  Yes, I understand that the majority of people living in poverty are minorities, but there is such a large percentage of poverty-stricken people that are white, that programs such as these should be altered and updated.  I believe that Affirmative Action promotes racism by simply making race a current subject of conversation.  I understand that race will always be differentiated, but to a new born baby, there should be nothing (government policies, especially) that confirm that there is truly a mental disadvantage if one is a minority and of a different skin color.  Although this is not the direct effect of these types of programs, implications are assumed, and peoples' beliefs are swayed.
School success is directly related to socio-economic status.  Race is not directly related to socio-economic status.  Thus, race is not directly related to school success.  Because this is the case, and it's socially wrong to say otherwise if you think about it, these government implemented policies should be updated and thought out again.  Why can't every person be judged individually, seeing as everyone is an individual?  This is where my questioning begins.  Yes, I realize that analyzing and digging deep into one's personal life is costly, but I believe that it's a cost that the government should take on.  What's more important that bringing up our future the way they should be brought up?  Certain environments are for all people, and if certain scores don't qualify, I don't believe there should be any type of government rule that says a private institution has to admit someone.  That situation could cost society more than it realizes in the long run; it definitely costs the institution more than it wants to pay.

I understand this is a very touchy and emotional problem that we are forced to face in society, but I believe it is a worthwhile conversation to be had.  By talking about future solutions, we will eventually come up with one.  Please don't take anything I say as an offensive statement, because that's not how I'm trying to come off.  I believe that everyone deserves an equal chance, even though I do not personally think that's possible, I believe in finding a way that can bring us closest to a solution.

Shake Shake

A popular topic around this time of year: What was the best album of 2012?

My answer to this question is hands down Boys and Girls by the Alabama Shakes.  Their debut album blew my mind the first time I heard it.  In April of 2012, I first heard their single: "Hold On".  Thinking it was a man with a feminine-like voice, I was instantly interested in what else this new band had to offer.  I heard "Hold On" about 5 times on WXRT before I decided to download their full album.  This was one of the greatest moments in my life.  The amazing blues yet rock sound this band was producing enticed me without avail.  I found that I couldn't bring myself to NOT listen to the album in its entirety.  Brittany Howard's relatable lyrics and clever guitar riffs have the ability to capture anyone's attention and appreciation.

Started in high school simply for the sake of making a band, the Alabama Shakes were a young, unknown band until their debut.  Since then, they have been making history across towns.  They've had acts all over America, including a 4:15 slot at the renowned Chicago music festival... Lollapalooza.  Unfortunately, there was a threatening storm force coming straight for downtown, leading to a evacuation and cancellation of the Alabama Shakes' performance time.  At this point, I was waiting backstage with my dad and friend Everett, and nearly collapsed to the ground when I heard the terrible news.  About 2 months before my birthday, a show in Chicago was released to the public... December 1, 2012 (my 18th birthday).  I was elated and got tickets ASAP.

When seeing the Alabama Shakes live, it's amazing to simply stand there and look at Howard.  She is so into the music that it's basically impossible for the entire audience to not get into it.  Her mouth has about a 6-inch diameter... something one could have guessed by listening to her music. I was utterly awestruck throughout their whole concert, leaving feeling like a different person.

My experience with the album and concert, I'd have to say that my two favorites are "Be Mine" and "You Ain't Alone".  The passion in both of these songs moves me every time I listen to them.  "Be Mine" could seem like a typical young girl yearning for the love of a boy, but I've found that there are so many other applications of the song.  It can truly relate to anyone going through a rough time with any kind of relationship (something most people face at least once in their life).  It's a tale of pain, something very clear on the whole album.  To be honest, before I saw them live, this song would not have made my top two, but the amazing emotion clearly portrayed Howard's struggle and the jam session that occurred at the end of this song moved my soul.  "You Ain't Alone" tuned me in immediately.  The slower tempo of the song creates a totally different side of the album, leaving one thinking about how versatile this new band really is.  The drumming in this song adds a peaceful idea in one's mood, but the lyrics are the main catch.  "If you're gonna cry//come on and cry with me" is an example of the message of this song.  The emotion is clearly pouring out of Howard during this whole song while she assures people that they're not the only ones dealing with life.  She's offering "her" condolences to her listeners, but in reality, she's informing people that there are always people there for them, even if it doesn't feel that way at the time.

Be Mine... Live at the Riviera (Dec 1, 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6VifOrnkHA

Be Mine (recording)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZqdBQfUL0

You Ain't Alone Live (good quality)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HxNtWEIKhQ

Hang Loose (recording)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSl11GMkMI

Frankly Speak!ng

While reading Man's Search for Meaning, I came across an idea that truly sparked my interest.  Frankl mentioned something of an inner life.  He stated that these memories that one could never be stripped of help during times of distress.
When I first read this, I agreed completely.  I loved this idea, but then I started to think more deeply about it.  Although it may help people in their current situation, relying on the inner life is something nobody should do.  The past is the past, but one's living condition relates to the now.  If one leads their life to relying on past good-times, nothing can truly be done for the future.
The past is important, it builds the future and it's how people learn how to act in future situations.  It also helps Frankl's act of logotherapy, because by thinking about what mark one has made, a meaning and purpose can be extracted out of that.  This is why everyone can find a meaning: everyone has a past.  Even if it might not be great, there will always be something (possibly stretched and exaggerated) that can be looked at as a meaning.  This is where I come to doubt that anyone can find a meaning if they're not willing and yearning for one.  Sure, there are those that have known their "calling" to the earth from birth, but there are also those that haven't had a positive, memorable experience that could give them such a credibility and meaning in life.  There are also those that have experienced only positive experiences, leading them to find no meaning because they can't recognize something that they've helped to make better.
This idea leads to my thoughts on "suffering" (another important theme in Man's Search for Meaning).  "Suffering", although it has a dictionary definition, is technically defined by each individual.  One may think that they're "suffering" when the $400 boots that just came out are out of stock, while another may think they're "suffering" when they can't afford to put food on the table.  I'm sure that anyone that compares these two situations can see who's "suffering more", but is are the situations the only dictators?
I think not.  If one allows oneself to "suffer" because they can't get their favorite boots, and they allow that to bring them down, they've developed a truly weak threshold.  This weak threshold will only hurt one in the future.
Frankl states that everyone will "suffer" at some point in their life and that it's their reaction that truly defines the individual.  The reaction means everything.  Because everything has to do with reaction and, on a deeper level, perception, the person that believes they're "suffering" because of the boots will ultimately suffer more.  What, if such a high threshold of "suffering", will this person allow to make her happy? And to what extent can this person's happiness truly exist?  Everything neutralizes, including spectrums.  However far down one gets (on a fixed, general spectrum) is exactly how happy that same person can be.
Although one that cannot afford to put food on the table is suffering more physically, one that allows suffering over the boots will ultimately "suffer" more mentally.     

No Exit, No Worries

While reading "No Exit" I found myself thinking about what my hell would be like quite a few times.  After a lot of thinking time, I came to the conclusion that my hell would consist of close-minded people that always thought they were right when, in reality, they had it all wrong.  I would also hate to be in a room with people who eat annoyingly, don't clean up after themselves or those that are uncontrollably lazy.  After I thought about everything I would hate to deal with for the rest of eternity (I came up with a lot), I thought about the whole message that Sarte was proposing to those who read his play.  "Hell is-- other people" is only possible if one is not living a "pour soi" life.  He represented every other existential lifestyle in "No Exit" (en soi (Estelle), commitment (Inez) and bad faith (Garcin)), and that's how/why they were in hell together.  If one of those people were living the pour soi way, 1) they probably wouldn't be in hell in the first place, 2) there would be some way to defeat the purpose of hell.  So basically, if one chooses to live the pour soi lifestyle, hell will never unintentionally enter their life.  This is simply because these people have the ability to chose any life they want to live, and I couldn't see why anyone would choose a life where hell is a possibility.
This being said, living the pour soi life is much more complicated than Sarte proposes it to be.  Some situations don't leave much leeway to how one responds to it.  Of course there is always a choice, but there might not always be a GOOD choice.  In the case of picking the lesser of two evils, one can lead a fairly miserable life.  But, if one is truly living the pour soi way, technically nothing should be able to bother them.  This is where I have a problem with the philosophy.  I don't believe that people should be so lenient that absolutely nothing bothers them.  It's unnatural.  Pet peeves, as petty as most are, are defining characteristics.  They represent what someone stands for, what someone enjoys and what someone dislikes.  If absolutely nothing bothered someone, they'd be living the life!  But I wouldn't consider them an individual.  Some things in life will bother you, it's basically inevitable.  And if it's actually come to the point where nothing can get under your skin, congrats, but maybe rethink your true core values.

Classroom Report

Who would have thought that a class that requires deep contemplation would become my favorite?  Not me, that's for sure.  When I first signed up for Philosophy, I had simply heard that it was a pretty decent class to take because good books were read and there weren't many tests.  This was the class that I was planning on sitting through for days, weeks, months, quarters and semesters.  As it turned out, that's not the case in the slightest.  Although we're still early in the year, Philosophy has already helped elongate my understanding of intellect's ideas as well as my own.
This has been made possible by discussions in class about the books that we're reading, etc.  Analyzing has always been a difficult process for me, and I've found that the way we go over it in class by learning some of the history of the philosophy before the ideas themselves has really helped with my analytical skills.  The only aspect I would change in the class is the amount of people that regularly participate.  I understand that it can be extremely difficult to speak one's mind in front of a class of 30 strangers, but that's one of the main points of philosophical thinking.  The more opinions and ideas that I come in contact with, the more I find myself learning.  I love having to think more about the issues discussed in class, I can't imagine how awesome it'd be if everyone contributed their thoughts as well.

Presidential decisions

Albert Camus and Voltaire are really not that different in their beliefs. Although one believes that there is no meaning in life (Camus) and the other believes that the meaning is to "cultivate one's garden", both believe that hard work is what everyone should focus on.
Because of this belief, if I had to pick the presidential candidate that each would vote for, I'd argue that it would be Mitt Romney.
Voltaire would vote for Romney because his main point is that he will create more jobs in America. This will lead to a higher employment rate, something that Voltaire holds high in importance. Romney also wants to decrease welfare benefits, something that many argue decrease people's initiative to work. Voltaire's views suggest that he would be totally in favor of this happening. A reason that Voltaire would not be in favor of Obama is the fact that a lot of his campaign is based on the idea of hope. Throughout "Candide", he satirized optimism and claimed that it was hyped up and not necessary to fulfilling a successful life. Voltaire believes in actions rather than hope and welfare, making it clear to me that he'd be pro-Romney.
Although I would say that Camus wouldn't waste his time voting for the next president of America, if he had to chose one candidate, he'd vote for Romney as well. Camus believes that nobody really matters in the long run, making me believe that he could care less about the state of welfare in America. He would also agree with the increased funding to military services, just as Voltaire would. Romney is supporting increased funds, Obama is not for them. Although I couldn't see Camus supporting either candidate, I believe that he is more compatible with Romney.