What It Means To Be Strong

 In my twenty-two years of life nothing has stung more than the realization that there are many ways to be strong; and that each is an endless depth unto itself. I do not know why it took me so long to see it. It should have been obvious. Confucius says, "to take what is close at hand as an analogy for what is far" and you will not stray too far. I know that when I was a young boy I wanted to be strong more than anything;  judging from my interactions with them, I think most young boys do. This is what is close at hand. So what is far? I would say that when I was a young boy the farthest thing imaginable was a young girl. In some ways I still find young women hard to comprehend... but that just goes to show I need to do a better job listening. Confucius says, "to take what is close at hand as an analogy for what is far." The young boy in my past is close at hand and girls were and are still far. If I, as a young boy, wanted to be strong more than anything, I am going to assume that young girls do too. It is from this assumption that I can clearly see that strength is multi-facted.
    Young boys are (not unanimously, but predictably, at least in our culture) obsessed with fighting and their muscles. Why, because we see this as what makes a person strong, and we want to be strong. Young girls, (not unanimously, but predictably, at least in our culture) are obsessed with their beauty and grace. Is this not also because they see this as what makes a person strong? Beauty gives you power over others just as physical dominance does, but in a different way. Then you begin to think about it, and you realize that someone who is beautiful or muscular can still be psychologically weak. So there is strength over others and there is strength over yourself; and within each of these categories there is a wide variety of methods for obtaining said strength. Strength is a plurality.
     But as a young boy (and perhaps a young girl too) you want to be able to say that your strength is the supreme strength. The strength that stands on top of all others. But you can't; and it is hard to accept, the promiscuity of what is strong.
     Harder still, is accepting the fact that your strength, the world you live and breathe in, is just as unknowable as strength in the broader more absolute sense. If you are a thinker, a runner, a drawer, a breather,  and you are concerned with being strong, you cannot imagine the ends of your world. To love an art (all those just listed and more) is to chase it to infinity knowing full well that it is a place we will never be able to go. I am such a man that loves strength, and so I love the Don Quixotes of the world. the men and women who follow that star all the time knowing just how far a star is from where they are. To me that is what it means to be strong. That is what it means to be beautiful.
    But it is hard. More so than you could ever possible imagine. I do not know if it is the culture that I was raised in or if it is should be attributed to a facet of the human condition, but I find myself incredibly prone to floating. There is a quote, I apologize that I do not know if I am quoting it properly, or who it should be attributed to, but it goes something like, "the enemy of great is not bad, it is good." Once we reach some level of proficiency we are satiated at a remarkable speed. And this applies for every single thing a person does. We learn to think, we learn a couple interesting facts or tricks, we give up on there being another way. We learn to walk and never once think that we could differently and that it would be better. To some extent I suppose this is necessary. If we meticulously went over every minute piece of existence we would never get anywhere. But I think we are at a point that is of the opposite extreme. Where even with the things we love and care about we have lost all sense of humility, all sense of passion, or curiosity and have assumed our own superiority self-evident. In all fairness, I am a step beyond this where I vocalize said arrogance, but I do not think it is that big of a step. And I do think that the majority of people are not that far from me. Perhaps they keep it to themselves, perhaps they do not actively try to change people, but the are every bit as stagnant with their methods of loving, problem-solving, thinking, living.

    Confucius says that in a hamlet of 20 homes you would find people as smarter than him or more courageous, but that no one excels him in his love of learning. To love learning, truly love learning, is to constantly be plumbing the depths of the world you have chosen to reside in (By world here I am referring to a body of knowledge that comprises a way of life that you believe to be strong/good/right and have chosen to partake in).

  I'll accept it if you think you know how to tie your shoes and brush your teeth, but anything beyond that level I cannot.        

Review: The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation

The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation by Roger T. Ames

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



This is a great book for anyone who wants to get a good introduction to the core values of Confucianism. The translation of the Analects itself is not my favorite. Though I like parts of it better than others on the whole I like Burton Watson's translation better. That said, the introduction of Ames Philosophical translation of the Analects is the best I have read. It gives the reader a clear understanding of some of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western thought, and accurately portrays the ideal of confucianism.

Too many academics in their writings on Confucianism have written based on the reality of history rather than the ideals that Confucianism tries to set. To judge any belief-system religious, philosophical, or political by the way it has been put to practice rather than what it strove for is to demonize it. If you look at the implementation of confucianism in Chinese or Korean histories you find authoritarianism, sexism, machoism and a long list of atrocities. However, the same can be said for christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Democracy, or any other belief system. Yet we do not judge Christianity based on the Crusades, or democracy based on the genocides it has led to in India and Rwanda. So we should not judge confucianism by the worst of its perversions. In attempting to see the ideal for which confucianism strives, this book is perfect.





View all my reviews

The Irony of Human Persuasion

      I spend a great deal of my time thinking how to convince people to change their habits. How to convince my family,  my friends,  my community, my country, and humanity in general. I do this because I am convinced that specific values and customs that they hold are wrong; and by wrong here what i mean is dangerous. I do not think I am alone in this. To the contrary, I think a concern for the actions and beliefs of loved ones is something that consumes most people. And that ultimately is what an attempt to change something about a person really is, a concern for their and your well-being. What I want to discuss here is not the validity of such an endeavor, but the illogical way in which the majority of us go about it.

   Thinking about my own life, when someone i love holds a belief or practice that i feel is dangerous my response is to show them why what they believe is wrong and what they should believe instead. Or to put it in other words, to attack the belief or practice. Does that make sense?  At first it appears to make sense. After all, I care about them, so of course I would look out for their best interests. But let's think about it a different way. I want to prevent people I care about from experiencing danger, but I attempt to reach this goal by attacking them, which to the human mind is synonymous with danger. Does this make sense?

   I don't think it does. And yet, from my experience this is the way most people attempt to change people. They might attack the idea by calling it stupid or ridiculous. If they have obtained a liberal arts education, there is a good chance they will attack the idea using the tools of western logic to show the other that they are being irrational in their belief. If they have any sort of higher education the use of scientific knowledge is generally a part of the assault, and if not, there is always the sword of experience and age to thrust into the belly of youth and inexperience. This variety of methods of persuasion are all an attack of some form or another.

  Why do we attack when we want to save? Isn't this just taking a perceived threat and substituting it with a real threat? Is it any wonder that people respond defensively to these attempts? You will rarely change someone's mind by attacking them, because we as humans are naturally distrusting of what hurts us. When touching a stove burns a baby the baby reflexively puts distance between its body and the stove. We react in the same way to hurtful ideas. The only reason our loved ones tolerate continued verbal assaults is because we are so integral to their self conception. This again is a reference to my notion of self (an essay I have not written) but the quick version of the idea is that a "self" is a network rather than a discrete body. Your most intimate relationships are literally a part of who you are. When your finger burns do you chop it off? No. In this respect, even though a particular relationship may continue to attack you, because it is a part of your self as whole you learn to cope with the attacks. However just as with attacks to your body, damage can be so severe that you have no choice but to amputate the limb or undergo some other sort of corrective surgery. I argue that the same is true from the self. We are defined by different relationships, some more important than others, but ultimately we are the heart-mind of our self, and if necessary can cut any and all other relationships to save ourselves. However, amputation or surgery are always painful events that leave the body irrevocably different from what it was before. In an ideal life, we would be able to avoid such things, and thus in our real lives do attempt to avoid such things at all cost. Even if it means dealing with a constant source of pain.

 To summarize, I am suggest that the most common form of human persuasion (attack, which could also be defined as argument/debate) is one that we are naturally adverse to and suffer from. In the following essay I will suggest some alternative methods of persuasion that I am personally trying to integrate into my daily life.

Review: Dynamics of Faith

Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



To anyone who sees faith and religion as lesser forms of knowledge that have been rendered obsolete by the developments of science, Paul Tillich's book The Dynamics of Faith is a must read. Tillich is concise and artful with his prose and defines and defends his point beautifully. Reading this the clarity of his argument coupled with a subtle ambiguity that keeps you from being certain masterfully embodies the very ultimacy he tries to convey. I could not help but be reminded of Confucius's (Kongzi) use of the word "ren" in this work, and can only hope that some day I am able to write with such art.



View all my reviews

Review: The Human Animal

The Human Animal by Weston La Barre

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



Weston La Barre's work of evolutionary psychology (sociobiology) is an entertaining work. The reader will learn much about the process of evolution and the biological mechanisms of several species that will broaden their scientific perspective and provide several fresh and powerful analogies. That said, La Barre strays too far into the realm of psychoanalysis. The strong influence of Freud is unavoidable and at times off-putting. The reader must constantly remind themselves La Barre is a product of his time, but still, some of the arguments he makes are so shockingly sexist and outdated that you cannot help but develop skepticism for the overall worth of the book. Honestly it is not one that I will read through again. But I did enjoy it. His description of ants, the sequence of different animal families, and expansion on Freud's ideas of the spectrum from culture-to-pyschosis are all interesting and worthwhile.



View all my reviews

Review: On Human Nature

On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



It is not surprising that On Human Nature receives a lot of criticism in the social sciences field. The solution he suggests is to effectively re-engineer the social sciences more thoroughly within the natural sciences. A process that would completely eradicate some current fields of academics (such as theology). While his delivery is crass in this sense, I do believe the book is worth reading and contains much valuable insight and knowledge. It is interesting to point out that the 1st dilemma he suggests human society faces is a need for what Paul Tillich calls faith. Though Wilson tries to rewrite it scientifically it is impossible to ignore this if you have read both authors. In this light I would say the question Wilson raises is valid, and the information he provides is vital, it is only his solution that I would disagree with (and only slightly). Basically what Wilson suggests is that we engineer culture to promote humaneness. The way he says it is different, and his method of doing this is different from what I would suggest. However, overall I think he is on the right path.



View all my reviews

Moral Action- The distribution of power

 A couple days ago I wrote my brainstorm on the components of moral action. When I say moral here what I am referring to is action that sustains the solidarity of a community/society. Solidarity is mutually desired, mutually felt, and mutually shared. It is what brings people into harmony with one another.  Any action that works towards this goal is moral; whereas any action that does more to separate people than it does to unite them must be thought of as immoral. I have suggested that moral action has three components: motivation, knowledge, and methods. In any situation where a person has the potential to act there is a right reason to to act (motivation), a right set of skills to   I would like to redefine the idea of methods to "methods of distribution" or just distribution. How The right motivations and the right knowledge are put to use, this is what is meant by distribution. I suggest that even if a person has the right motivation and the right knowledge, without the right distribution their actions cannot be called moral. In fact, chances are they are immoral. To show this I would like to share with the reader a story. The story is called "The God of Peace." The God of Peace is a short children's story that is written as part of Naoki Urasawa's manga Monster. The story goes like this:

The God of Peace was very busy. He had to blow his trumpet all day long and didn't have time to look into the mirror.

The God of Peace's trumpet brought happiness to everyone. He did not have any time to look into the mirror and poured amazing water to the land. The water created lush mountains, made farming land fertile and grew flowers in the process.

The God of Peace was very busy. He did not have time to look into the mirror and gave names to everyone.

"Your name is Otto. Your name is Hans. Your name is Tomas."

"And your name is Johan."

Johan gave his hat to the God of Peace as an expression of thanks for giving him a name.

The God of Peace was very happy and wanted to see how he looked with the hat. That was when he first looked at himself in the mirror.

However, the reflection in the mirror was that of a MONSTER!

The monster said, "You are me. And I am you."

    What can we learn from this story? There is a God of Peace. What are the motivations of his actions? The God of Peace wants to bring happiness to everyone. To do this he blowed his trumpet, created lush mountains, fertile farmlands, and grew pretty flowers. The God of Peace even gives the people names. A name is the basis of an identity, healthy and fertile land is the basis of a community. The God of Peace is working to bring happiness to everyone. Is this not the right motivation? The God of Peace knows how to work the land to make it good and he knows what individual people need to be good (some sense of identity). Is this not the right knowledge? To be able to make an environment fertile and to give people assurance in who they are without a doubt requires knowledge. Assured people and healthy land are the basis of a flourishing society. And yet, when the God of Peace finally has time to look at himself in the mirror... he is a MONSTER!

     I took this too be literal not figurative; meaning that what "the God of Peace" was doing was actually hurting everyone, not helping them. How could it be hurting them?! The people were fed, happy, and safe doesn't that make the God of Peace's actions moral? I do not think it does, and here is why. You often hear people say they don't want a "knight in shinning armor," or they are not looking for some "superman to save the day" why is that? It is because if you had  knight in shinning armor or a superman taking care of all your problems, making life easy and completely safe, they would be crippling you. You would become so dependent on them that you would not know how to function without them. Let's go back to the story. The God of Peace tells people who they are, he effectively manages their agriculture; imagine what would happen if he were to disappear. It would be chaos. That is why when he looks in the mirror he realizes he is a monster. Before there was a God of Peace how did the people survive? They had their own knowledge and their own motivations. Sure their knowledge was nowhere near the level of the God of Peace's; sure their motivations were no where near the level of the God of Peace's; but they at least had some knowledge and motivation. As things are in the story all knowledge and motivation is monopolized by the God of Peace, it is not evenly distributed. So what happens when the God of Peace dies, or when the God of Peace is sick, or if he has an emotional breakdown? Society breaks down.

    It is irresponsible to monopolize the motivation and knowledge of a community into the bodies of a single or a few individuals no matter who they are. This is an almost universally accepted fact of the real world. That is why when we have something we want to protect or sustain we create multiple failsafes. No competent machine integrates the entirety of its functions through a single gear. To the contrary, truly important machinery not only divides its mechanics among many separate components, but it also contains multiple failsafes. The more centralized the mechanics of a machine is the easier it will break. I realize thinking of communities as machines might be displeasing to some given the connotations attributed to the word machine, but please temporarily put those aside. I do not mean to imply that communities are cold, static, mechanical, or lifeless. What I am trying to convey with the machine analogy is that like a machine, communities are composed of the integration of a multitude of factors (parts) that harmonize together into a larger function. And just like machines communities can break if certain factors are not taken into consideration.

    The topic of this essay is moral action. What I am suggesting here, is that in addition to solidifying the bonds between people morality should also work to be self-sustaining. What good is the ability to form a union if it is prone to dissolve as quickly as you can pull it together? Moral action is motivated by creating solidarity between people, it is equipped with the proper knowledge to supply those people with meaningful lives, but it is also designed to last. i am arguing that having the right motivation and the right knowledge is not as unheard of as it might have been several centuries or millennia ago. At this point in time humanity has produced enough literature and enough science to be able to conceive the right motivations for an action and the right knowledge to complete it (not that it always happens, but it is at least somewhat common). However, what I do not think we have done a good job developing is the right means of distribution of these things. Our actions, be they individual actions or the actions of nations, are often too centralized. To put it another way, I am suggesting that the superman model inherently fails at saving society. If you want to help your community, help your family, help your world, it must be done with them, not for them. You might have the right motivations, and you might even possess the right knowledge to do this, but if you fail to distribute the responsibility/ownership of these things across the community you are attempting to effect, then your efforts will be ultimately immoral. You will look into the mirror one day and realize you are a MONSTER!!!