"How I view the World"
Here's the editorial from the Post Bulletin from David Brooks. I think it is an awesome read based on our first fews days together and our discussions thus far. I also think it is a great segue into our discussion in a little over a week from now about is democracy haunting the world.
I'm curious to read your thoughts. Feel free to comment on Mr. Brooks' thoughts as we may apply it to our first unit of study in APL/G.
DT
The link didn't work Friday but I have fixed it today (Saturday).
Living in a Chasm-filled World
posted by erdecker @ 2:56 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I do not have a subscription to the Post-Bulletin (well, my brothers deliever it, so maybe I do, I don't know)...is there a way to post the article in its entirety on the blog?
Is this the article?
http://pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-341.htm
I can't access the PB either, but this is his most recent, published yesterday in the NYT.
Yes, it's a syndicated column but yes, information wants to be free. Welcome to the new paradigm.
The link now works. Sorry. The URL Mr. Decker gives isn't the article I posted.
Mr. Thompson
When Arij made the comment about how our civilization is moving back, I thought of the part of the article that says "People who live in societies where the past dominates the present are different from people who live in societies where the future dominates the present." This bring up the question of whether it is better to be dominated by the past or the present (then again, there is no time like the present). The leaders of our country obviously feels that democracy is the best form of government, therefore we try to impose it on other countries. I would have to agree that a change may be helpful in the international issues we are having, but it seems it would be very difficult to go about doing it in a way that will convince people that a change could possibly do our country (and our world!) some good.
I was most disturbed by this statement: It’s true people everywhere hate oppression, but they also require identity, and human beings build identities by collectively hating groups that represent what they are not.
It's disturbing, but true. The sermon at my church just last week was about how as humans we all have a natural desire to fit in somewhere. Many of our actions are the result of that, whether they produce positive results or negative, as in the case of gangs. As Americans we identify ourselves with the ideals of our country, but it seems to be that as time goes on, our country is identifying itself in the way of this quote. We aren't building on the identity of our country, but rather are identifying ourselves by pointing out what we hate in the rest of the world. I hate terrorism too, but if all we do is strike out against all people we disapprove of, the violent state of the world is bound to lead to our demise. And while this may seem both idealistic and dramatic, I think we need to keep it in mind in order to return to the state of the world Brooks saw before 9/11. That too brings up the question, was the world ever really like that?
Erin
Hi. This is Kristine. I noticed in the article it said that it is becoming more necessary to spread democracy as the 'hills' between societies are becoming rockier. The article also talked about how people everywhere "require respect and recognition and they will sacrifice their own lives...for status". I think this says a lot. We cannot go around forcing what we believe is best on people, because often what they want is recognition that they have status, that they are strong enough to make their own decisions. When we bully people, we have to expect them to retaliate. Just because we, in general, believe that democracy works, other people, who have huge societal difference, do not feel the same way.
I totally agree. Aristotle, even though he said that he believed that a democracy ruled by the middle class was best, admitted that in some casses other forms of government may work better. (this is on the final page of the packet we were given in class)
Luke T
Hmm... Mr Brooks seems to present us with an interesting concept of human nature. Like Hobbes, he points out that humans are motivated strongly to create societes by the desire to escape a choatic waring state. However, he then adds that they require moral systems, identity, and status. These are concepts foriegn to Hobbes' state of nature. Mr. Brooks is essentially combining humanist and Hobbesian views of human nature. Now normally, humanists paint a much prettier picture of human nature than Hobbes ever would and both philosophies would be fundamentally incompatible. However, Mr. Brooks seems to make it work. And, for the most part, I wouldn't argue with him.
Oh, and in response to the question Erin posed at the end of her post: No, I don't think the world was ever really like that. Humans just aren't that simple.
Well, that was my two cents.
-Javier
I thought it was interesting that the closer two different groups feel, globally, with communication and trade, the further apart they feel toward each other. Even 100 years ago, where trade and communication with other countries was almost nothing compared with today, countries, such as the US, were less involved with the operations of other groups. And, groups felt less religious animosity towards other as well. Nowadays, the more we know about other countries, and the more they know about us, the more we both know that we're different, with different values. The closer we are in communication, the further apart we actually become.
Luke M
Post a Comment
<< Home