"I asked one of the key developers what motivated him. He said that, unlike scientists who carve out truth claims, he prefered inventing good things to have. In this, I think he headlined a core shared idea of our new age. Tens of millions of us go to work everyday to create, make sell, and service good things to have" (On Value and Values Douglas Smith 125)
I came across this quote when reading for my Realm of Values class and it perplexed me. The author is describing how a scientist describes how he no longer is searching for scientific truths, but instead creates good things to have. This idea bothers me especially when Smith claims this is headlined a shared idea of our new age. Smith is stating that many individuals seek things that are "good to have" this materialism bothers me. I know we all enjoy our ipods and own laptop computers, but what about the environmental damage mining for lithium to have batteries? Is our own materialism leading to environmental damage (There is an article in the National Geographic that talks about the damaging Environmental effects of Gold if anyone would be interested in further reading, i know it does not deal with lithium, but the idea of drastic enviromental effects for greed is illustrated). I understand that with new technology there are two sides to every coin. For example, new technology has allowed us to develop purses that can charge a cell phone or ipod based on solar power. However, how many of those purses do you see these days? Does the quote illustrate how materialistic our society has gone that we only think about the things that are good to have and do not think about their implications? Does it show that the average american cares more about material status then discovering scientific truths?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Intention
I remember going to the Cincinnati Art Museum with my mom. We were looking at a painting by Picasso and my mom makes the comment, "That's ugly." Well, okay. I guess she's allowed to think that. But then she says, "I don't know why they put it in the art museum. I mean, I could do that." Woha. Thems fightn' words. So I decided to explain to her about Picasso's background and the world he grew up in. I explained about how he was painting photographically by his teens and how, with the advent of the camera, this sort of style was no longer necessary. I explained how Picasso sought to grab attention, to make a statement by purposely skewing his figures, by making them so different from life. I pointed out how, if you look closely, you can see that the artist was educated, that he was applying all of the principles of design found in good artwork, and those that were violated were done so with purpose. He had done all of this on purpose.
She looked at me and said, "Whatever. I still could have done it."
I looked at her and said, "But you didn't."
When regarding any product, be it a painting, a poem, or dance, and when regarding any action, be it a smile, a posture, or glance, intention speaks volumes. These things are interpreted with or without the actor's blessing, taking on a life of their own, but intention still matters. Sure, my mom could have done that Picasso painting, but Picasso did it, and Picasso could have done much "better" than that and chose not to. His intention is what makes his work so powerful. The same work could have been produced by two different artists, the same passage written by two different authors, the same words spoken by two different people, yet the actions of one of each pair can possibly and most reasonably be more powerful than those of the other. And all because of intention.
And I don't believe anything happens without intention. One can argue that people do things unintentionally all the time, but I don't know that this is true. Things are interpreted by the world differently than the author has intended all the time, yes, but the initial intention was still there. And perhaps, if you subscribe to Freudian teachings, those unconscious slips aren't all unintentional either. Personally, I don't think that anything can come to be by accident; that is, I don't believe that anything has no purpose. And so all must begin with at least some sort of Divine intention, at least.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Jamie Oliver is this year’s winner of the TED prize. Past recipients range from Billy Graham to Richard Dawkins. The basic modus operandi of the TED conference and the prize is that the recipient receives a large sum of money to spend however they like. The intention, of course, is to pick altruistic and intelligent people who need funding without any agenda or political motivation behind it. This year’s recipient is Jamie Oliver, AKA, the Naked Chef.
Oliver, or as I should say, Sir Oliver has made it his own personal crusade to improve food quality and to fight obesity. He began his fight over in the UK and has taken it here believing that others will follow our lead. He has received massive support from the TED prize to a new ABC show and even joining hands with Michelle Obama. Needless to say he is not for want of personal wealth or outside funding. He is an extremely successful business man who raised himself up from working in a pub to being a multi-millionaire, in other words, he understands business. Oliver has thrived in the free market capitalist system that most moral crusaders, like Michael Moore, attempt to change. He, on the other hand, is trying to use it.
Oliver believes that a real change of values will not come from above like the hortatory campaigns of “Just say no”, or D.A.R.E. rather he believes that change will come from a general grass roots conversion of values that will reshape broadly how Americans think, eat, and most importantly spend. In a very similar fashion to the effect of Upton Sinclaire’s The Jungle, Oliver hopes that his new T.V. show will change the value sets of Americans. The idea that Americans will demand greater accountability from their food vendors is not something is entirely new or unheard of. Also, he makes the point that these companies are not bent on killing you, merely making a profit. If people decide to buy food from a healthier restaurant then the market will move as such.
A liberal market economy is much like an ecosystem; animals will live in an area where they can most readily survive. So too will businesses; if there is no market for selling rancid food then the rancid food vendors will go out of business. Oliver’s point is well taken; change must come from below and be aimed at the values of consumers. Education, options, and most of all, awareness are required for this change to happen. This is where government can come in. Once value sets are changed people will vote accordingly and regulations, like the creation of the FDA after Sinclair’s novel, will be passed. Also, education will change; at least Oliver hopes so, to facilitate more cooking and awareness of nutrition.
Hopefully Oliver succeeds on his quest to make food healthier, but I think that his manner of questing seems to be revolutionary. It’s not directed at any specific group nor is it taking on some variety of moralism, but it is basically practical. It hits America where it hurts: the wallet. Make it no longer profitable to sell bad food and no more bad food will be sold. The most effective way of changing things is not to yell at people or to lecture, but rather to convince them. The reason why the war on drugs has been slow and the fight against global warming stagnant is that they both appear to be shoved down people’s throats. It would not be profitable to take on these issues for companies or private individuals as is. Therefore, you need to make it profitable to change rather than not; move the market and you change people.
Oliver, or as I should say, Sir Oliver has made it his own personal crusade to improve food quality and to fight obesity. He began his fight over in the UK and has taken it here believing that others will follow our lead. He has received massive support from the TED prize to a new ABC show and even joining hands with Michelle Obama. Needless to say he is not for want of personal wealth or outside funding. He is an extremely successful business man who raised himself up from working in a pub to being a multi-millionaire, in other words, he understands business. Oliver has thrived in the free market capitalist system that most moral crusaders, like Michael Moore, attempt to change. He, on the other hand, is trying to use it.
Oliver believes that a real change of values will not come from above like the hortatory campaigns of “Just say no”, or D.A.R.E. rather he believes that change will come from a general grass roots conversion of values that will reshape broadly how Americans think, eat, and most importantly spend. In a very similar fashion to the effect of Upton Sinclaire’s The Jungle, Oliver hopes that his new T.V. show will change the value sets of Americans. The idea that Americans will demand greater accountability from their food vendors is not something is entirely new or unheard of. Also, he makes the point that these companies are not bent on killing you, merely making a profit. If people decide to buy food from a healthier restaurant then the market will move as such.
A liberal market economy is much like an ecosystem; animals will live in an area where they can most readily survive. So too will businesses; if there is no market for selling rancid food then the rancid food vendors will go out of business. Oliver’s point is well taken; change must come from below and be aimed at the values of consumers. Education, options, and most of all, awareness are required for this change to happen. This is where government can come in. Once value sets are changed people will vote accordingly and regulations, like the creation of the FDA after Sinclair’s novel, will be passed. Also, education will change; at least Oliver hopes so, to facilitate more cooking and awareness of nutrition.
Hopefully Oliver succeeds on his quest to make food healthier, but I think that his manner of questing seems to be revolutionary. It’s not directed at any specific group nor is it taking on some variety of moralism, but it is basically practical. It hits America where it hurts: the wallet. Make it no longer profitable to sell bad food and no more bad food will be sold. The most effective way of changing things is not to yell at people or to lecture, but rather to convince them. The reason why the war on drugs has been slow and the fight against global warming stagnant is that they both appear to be shoved down people’s throats. It would not be profitable to take on these issues for companies or private individuals as is. Therefore, you need to make it profitable to change rather than not; move the market and you change people.
The Prophet
Lately, I've been reading (and re-reading) the work of Lebanese philosopher Kahlil Gibran - primarily The Prophet. There is one passage in particular that is sticking with me. It's so beautiful...it makes my heart hurt. So, I decided to share it with you:
"For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun?
And what is it to cease breathing, but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered?
Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing.
And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb.
And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance" (81).
Thoughts?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
ow start Philosophizing! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)