I have a friend on Facebook that posted an interesting thought I wouldn't mind exploring. By now, you might have noticed that a decent amount of my discussion topics stem from different triggers off of social media. Anyway, she posted something along the lines of "everyone is born at a set point in time, but our actions can push us one step closer or further to our ending point, which is, mostly, left in mystery, unlike our beginning."
Not the exact words, but the concept was the same or very similar. I thought that was pretty interesting, because it is true that although we can all agree that we begin at one definite point (physically, at least) - it is so very "up in the air" when it comes to your own death. The sooner we choose to die, the more power we have at ending our existence with our own influence. That being said, it is also possible to influence our survival, but the more we influence our survival, the more mystery gets put on our end. I hope this makes sense?
If you decide right now that you will end yourself, you can do anything you'd like to create a set point and method of death that you outline yourself.
If you decide to continue your existence, you have a considerable amount of influence over if, and how long, you live, but no matter how much influence you put on your own survival, it will never be as ultimate as simply ending one's existence by your own volition.
Now, to be clear, this is simply an appreciable thought process from a philosophical perspective, not an encouragement to end your life by any means. It's a gruesome thought, but it is really interesting - at least, it is to me. Really a battle of influence between relativity and absolutism.
Listening to: Stromae, "formidable"
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The Nonexistence of "Real Men" and "Real Women"
I have too many things that poke a little at my annoyance, and although I'm trying to change my view of the world, I might just as well take advantage of my present state of mind and write some of these thoughts down - although, hopefully they will have diminished later in my life. Anyway, as is the trigger for a decent percentage of my "rants", I saw something on Facebook (surprise!) that just tickled a nerve with a needle. Now, I've seen this in the past, and is not limited to this one instance, but as I'm finally expressing these ideas through this blog, I can really let myself go and mention it.
"Real men". Puh-lease. I feel like most of you know what I'm talking about already; the distinction between "boys" and "men" is a widespread, simplistic view of the male definition. People don't think (what's new there... *bitter Nic*) about how stupid this sounds: "Real men know how to treat a woman.", "Real men know how to use a wrench.", "Real men hold hands with their girlfriend when they're brushing their teeth."
STFU.
"Real men" do not exist - they never have, and they never will. Do you want to know why? (probably not, but this is my world so I'm going to pretend like you do) Because grouping males into "boys" and "men" is childish, over simplified, and feeds the social constructs that humans are supposed to behave a certain way, robbing them of their uniqueness.
There are males that exist that are very proficient at fixing cars, males that love to dance, males that like to do drugs, males that drive fast cars, males that dress up in "women's" clothing, and about a trillion combinations of different aspects of life. They are, merely (or completely?) human, defined as male based on their physiology, but their thought process should/is/trying to be unique to them as humans, and as such, should be understood as a person before they are seen as "men", or more aptly, more neutral, as males. So, that is why "real men" do not exist. You have your preferences for the people you would like in your corner, but because those who do not prescribe to your corner of people does not make them any less than human.
Now, does this only apply to men? Nay, no, never, nein, non. Females are often held to some weird social standard, too. The exact same argument can be made for females, as well; I simply made the argument for men, because I am more familiar, its closer to home, and I wanted to simplify my explanation. However, females have a different physiology, and as such, are different in that respect (irrefutably), but their minds are open to uniqueness that should be left unbound and unchained to social restriction that we all, in some shape or another, hate (I REALLY need to write about how we all hate social stigma and yet, we feed it to ourselves and pressure it on one another without any idea why).
That's my piece.
Listening to: Backstreet Boys, "Larger than Life" (Come at me, brohemio)
"Real men". Puh-lease. I feel like most of you know what I'm talking about already; the distinction between "boys" and "men" is a widespread, simplistic view of the male definition. People don't think (what's new there... *bitter Nic*) about how stupid this sounds: "Real men know how to treat a woman.", "Real men know how to use a wrench.", "Real men hold hands with their girlfriend when they're brushing their teeth."
STFU.
"Real men" do not exist - they never have, and they never will. Do you want to know why? (probably not, but this is my world so I'm going to pretend like you do) Because grouping males into "boys" and "men" is childish, over simplified, and feeds the social constructs that humans are supposed to behave a certain way, robbing them of their uniqueness.
There are males that exist that are very proficient at fixing cars, males that love to dance, males that like to do drugs, males that drive fast cars, males that dress up in "women's" clothing, and about a trillion combinations of different aspects of life. They are, merely (or completely?) human, defined as male based on their physiology, but their thought process should/is/trying to be unique to them as humans, and as such, should be understood as a person before they are seen as "men", or more aptly, more neutral, as males. So, that is why "real men" do not exist. You have your preferences for the people you would like in your corner, but because those who do not prescribe to your corner of people does not make them any less than human.
Now, does this only apply to men? Nay, no, never, nein, non. Females are often held to some weird social standard, too. The exact same argument can be made for females, as well; I simply made the argument for men, because I am more familiar, its closer to home, and I wanted to simplify my explanation. However, females have a different physiology, and as such, are different in that respect (irrefutably), but their minds are open to uniqueness that should be left unbound and unchained to social restriction that we all, in some shape or another, hate (I REALLY need to write about how we all hate social stigma and yet, we feed it to ourselves and pressure it on one another without any idea why).
That's my piece.
Listening to: Backstreet Boys, "Larger than Life" (Come at me, brohemio)
Thursday, April 3, 2014
This is Rant About Math
In the past 11 weeks, I have spent an average of 4 hours per 5 days of the week on Math, because I suck at it. So, that's a total of 220 (a total of almost 10 days) hours on math alone. Now, I must say that I got a perfect score on my first exam, an 'A' on my second, and I feel sure I will annihilate my next with similar fashion. So, my rage against math is not a matter of me doing poorly in it, considering I'm doing better than everyone in my class merely due to sheer will power, dedication, and a "let's get this shit over with pronto" mentality. That being said, in the words of Dr. Cox on Scrubs, I "megaloath" Math. Ever since about 5th grade I have had a deep disdain for math, because I was horrible at it, but I would argue I am horrible at it, because I can't allow my mind to mindlessly plug numbers into place without knowing the worth of what I'm doing. Math is mechanical, shit, robotic, shit, inhuman... poop.
I mean, almost everyone agrees that most things we learn in the math room we never, ever, ever, ever use in the entirety of our lives... so... why am I learning it? I realize it's beneficial to learn if you're going into engineering, physics, etc, but even these people don't use 97% of the things they are taught in the classroom, because everything we learn is so uselessly complex that everyone instinctually simplifies it to the fundamentals (addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, proportions, fractions, etc.) in an effort to reach an answer. So, again, why am I learning this when almost everyone I speak to or even just observe have demonstrated that they simply do not use it as it is taught. I'm not asking for the abolition of mathematics, but when 3x+4y+2t^3 = .087C - 41T^2/3^4:
I DO NOT CARE, BECAUSE I WILL NEVER ENCOUNTER THIS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
That statement is the one that plagues me every single day I am forced to cram this information down my throat (which, I promise you, I always forget within days of writing it on the exam.. and guess what? I'm able to get by with simple math in my daily life), and because it plagues me so, I find it nearly impossible to learn this information for good (rendering it, two part useless). It's like being told that a specific tool is going to be very useful for later life for no reason at all, and you know that is not the case, and yet you still have to learn how to use the tool for a job that will never happen.
Not to mention, the amount of rules in math is staggering (or maybe it is to someone who has a hard time allowing himself to process all the bull). In one chapter, the symbol "X" means one thing, but int he next chapter, it means something else. In one chapter, you're allowed to do something, but in the next... nope - no longer! I also love the instances in which it's obvious that the answer is impossible to reach based on the rules we currently know, but waaaaaaaait a second!, according to article 16, page 4, line 3C of the Bible of Math, we can tag in a ghost number that beats up the barrier that has stopped us, on every other chapter, from getting further in the answer, but once we have the ghost number (we will name it G here), we have to use another random formula that isn't explained as to why it exists to get rid of G, but remember... a negative can't be left in the numerfrator, because... oh, that's right, no explanation.. you just aren't supposed to have it there, because the Math Gestapo will come and get you (I wish they would, I'd go Jason Bourne on their asses) [long sentence much?]. What. The. Hell.
No.
My brain simply rejects things that A) Will not be used in life, B) Serve no use in my betterment as a person, and/or C) Activate my mind critically.
Don't get me wrong, math is extremely useful and I respect its use in day to day activities; I'm simply stating that most of the math we learn seems like it's there to make professors feel like they know something complex without much practical application. Even if some of these complex ways are "short cuts" to getting to an answer that will help build a convex bridge, there always seems to be a longer, yet far simpler way to reach that point - and I always prefer the longer route if it means I have to learn less in this particular subject.
Oddly enough, there are variations of math that I very much enjoy. For example, simple statistics are rather enjoyable.. because they pertain to my field of interest, and almost every scientist on planet Earth needs them to equate relevance and efficiency to their work - that, I can respect, would like to learn more about, and I will use it many times in my career.
Today, I genuinely thought about debating my math teacher about why I was in the class room learning this information and in what common situation I would be using this lecture. I held back, for tactical reasons: pissing off a professor in a subject you already have to work incredibly hard at is not my idea of a good idea.
Ok, so when I need to blast this subject again, I'll just add it to this lovely piece.
Listening to: Parkway Drive, "Boneyards" (Thanks Alex...)
I mean, almost everyone agrees that most things we learn in the math room we never, ever, ever, ever use in the entirety of our lives... so... why am I learning it? I realize it's beneficial to learn if you're going into engineering, physics, etc, but even these people don't use 97% of the things they are taught in the classroom, because everything we learn is so uselessly complex that everyone instinctually simplifies it to the fundamentals (addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, proportions, fractions, etc.) in an effort to reach an answer. So, again, why am I learning this when almost everyone I speak to or even just observe have demonstrated that they simply do not use it as it is taught. I'm not asking for the abolition of mathematics, but when 3x+4y+2t^3 = .087C - 41T^2/3^4:
I DO NOT CARE, BECAUSE I WILL NEVER ENCOUNTER THIS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
That statement is the one that plagues me every single day I am forced to cram this information down my throat (which, I promise you, I always forget within days of writing it on the exam.. and guess what? I'm able to get by with simple math in my daily life), and because it plagues me so, I find it nearly impossible to learn this information for good (rendering it, two part useless). It's like being told that a specific tool is going to be very useful for later life for no reason at all, and you know that is not the case, and yet you still have to learn how to use the tool for a job that will never happen.
Not to mention, the amount of rules in math is staggering (or maybe it is to someone who has a hard time allowing himself to process all the bull). In one chapter, the symbol "X" means one thing, but int he next chapter, it means something else. In one chapter, you're allowed to do something, but in the next... nope - no longer! I also love the instances in which it's obvious that the answer is impossible to reach based on the rules we currently know, but waaaaaaaait a second!, according to article 16, page 4, line 3C of the Bible of Math, we can tag in a ghost number that beats up the barrier that has stopped us, on every other chapter, from getting further in the answer, but once we have the ghost number (we will name it G here), we have to use another random formula that isn't explained as to why it exists to get rid of G, but remember... a negative can't be left in the numerfrator, because... oh, that's right, no explanation.. you just aren't supposed to have it there, because the Math Gestapo will come and get you (I wish they would, I'd go Jason Bourne on their asses) [long sentence much?]. What. The. Hell.
No.
My brain simply rejects things that A) Will not be used in life, B) Serve no use in my betterment as a person, and/or C) Activate my mind critically.
Don't get me wrong, math is extremely useful and I respect its use in day to day activities; I'm simply stating that most of the math we learn seems like it's there to make professors feel like they know something complex without much practical application. Even if some of these complex ways are "short cuts" to getting to an answer that will help build a convex bridge, there always seems to be a longer, yet far simpler way to reach that point - and I always prefer the longer route if it means I have to learn less in this particular subject.
Oddly enough, there are variations of math that I very much enjoy. For example, simple statistics are rather enjoyable.. because they pertain to my field of interest, and almost every scientist on planet Earth needs them to equate relevance and efficiency to their work - that, I can respect, would like to learn more about, and I will use it many times in my career.
Today, I genuinely thought about debating my math teacher about why I was in the class room learning this information and in what common situation I would be using this lecture. I held back, for tactical reasons: pissing off a professor in a subject you already have to work incredibly hard at is not my idea of a good idea.
Ok, so when I need to blast this subject again, I'll just add it to this lovely piece.
Listening to: Parkway Drive, "Boneyards" (Thanks Alex...)
The Moral Point
Let's make this quick:
Does God exist?
From a moral stand point, it doesn't matter - the vast majority still act the exact same way, regardless of their belief. Atheists tend to have the exact same moral code as Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.. Quite frankly, if you worship Satan, the point stands so long as your actions and feelings stand true to the overall compassion toward your fellow man. So, from that single perspective, I do not care what your belief is, because if you have even a moderate level of a moral compass, then you are no different than anyone else standing in front of you.
Of course, I have to reiterate, this is a vast majority, not unanimity - because, as with almost everything in the waking world, there are exceptions, but even with those exceptions, you should create a different set of reactions for the situation and exception, because the generalization of the majority is likely to hurt the integrity of the moral point with little to no record (like dragging a fishing net through an abundance of fish to catch one specific fish and throwing the rest back after they've perished).
Listening to: The Black Keys, "Howlin' For You"
Does God exist?
From a moral stand point, it doesn't matter - the vast majority still act the exact same way, regardless of their belief. Atheists tend to have the exact same moral code as Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.. Quite frankly, if you worship Satan, the point stands so long as your actions and feelings stand true to the overall compassion toward your fellow man. So, from that single perspective, I do not care what your belief is, because if you have even a moderate level of a moral compass, then you are no different than anyone else standing in front of you.
Of course, I have to reiterate, this is a vast majority, not unanimity - because, as with almost everything in the waking world, there are exceptions, but even with those exceptions, you should create a different set of reactions for the situation and exception, because the generalization of the majority is likely to hurt the integrity of the moral point with little to no record (like dragging a fishing net through an abundance of fish to catch one specific fish and throwing the rest back after they've perished).
Listening to: The Black Keys, "Howlin' For You"
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Revolution of Education: The Human Element
While there is growing rumbling that higher education is becoming less useful in the face of an increasing ability to access information (local libraries, the internet, online libraries) with a high rate or reliability, I do think that the education system has an advantage that is very difficult to emulate as smoothly online, and yet, the education systems fail to take advantage of such a tool, because they see it as unimportant. Information is easy to access - not much doubt about that; however, something far closer to home is much harder to reach than any set of concrete facts found online or in a book. I've discussed the difference between "Smart" and "Intelligent" in the past, but a short blurb on the subject can be of use here.
Essentially, being smart means you know information, while being intelligent is a far more raw, difficult to measure representation of thought, creativity, abstract thought. The school system measures smarts - just about 99% of the time. Do I find this annoying? Extremely. As a matter of fact, I'm biased against it. I feel that the school systems I've encountered, and heard of, are failing to realize the immense importance of allowing a person to unleash their intelligence (some more than others, obviously). Classes need to be offered, maybe even required, with an extremely open curriculum. Professors should guide students to unleashing their interests, their mind, and expressing themselves through their opinions. Facts are for smart people, opinions unleash intelligence. Instead of looking at students in the outdated concept of "fill 'em up" with information and send 'em out", we should be taking a serious look into growing and cultivating students' interests by enabling growth through communication and sharing of opinions. There are a high number of benefits to this, as these students will grow as more complete human beings, more expressive, and would learn to communicate efficiently.
So, how do we do this? Start offering classes with an extremely thin curriculum that is not set to be completed, but rather, to stimulate. Let me tell you, I've been in a class where a professor has said something controversial and BOOM! the room goes off in a buzz, arms start raising, students suddenly sit straight up, and the level of activity exponentially rises proportional to the day in day out "smart" teaching of "suck in this information for later". It gets to a point that when students are interested, because someone asks a question of interest to the whole class (or a part, even), that the professor has to reign in the conversation and direct it back to the lecture (most have a hard time doing this, because even they are enjoying the conversation).. which is BULL SHIT.
People just don't get that excited about their interests on a regular basis, let me tell you - I know this is opinion, but it might just as well be fact. Education systems need to stop thinking so damn linearly - it is, absolutely, a less efficient system in the long term development of students. I know most institutions will see it as a waste of resources, but I could easily argue that it will turn an institution from a regular, unoriginal system to a lively, feedback driven organism feeding off of the human element of people's minds. We need to have classes where going "off topic" is exactly what the class is designed for - let people be people and assert themselves in the eyes of their peers; this is a wise business tactic, as well, because it allows students to learn effective communication skills, it livens up the class room, and it is low stress, high reward. I'm sure many students would see it as pointless, but those who do engage (and trust me, I've been in several instances in which it involuntarily exploded in classes) will show their true colors and true potential.
The system is broken, but the human element is its most egregious, overlooked leak in a flawed system of education. Bring back the human element, and you will regain some appreciation, love, all while teaching people how to communicate effectively, passionately, intelligently with one another - the students walking out of that school system will be better adjusted, adaptable, communicative, and above all, have a clearer understanding of their own views.
Listening to: The Black Keys, "Howlin' For You"
Essentially, being smart means you know information, while being intelligent is a far more raw, difficult to measure representation of thought, creativity, abstract thought. The school system measures smarts - just about 99% of the time. Do I find this annoying? Extremely. As a matter of fact, I'm biased against it. I feel that the school systems I've encountered, and heard of, are failing to realize the immense importance of allowing a person to unleash their intelligence (some more than others, obviously). Classes need to be offered, maybe even required, with an extremely open curriculum. Professors should guide students to unleashing their interests, their mind, and expressing themselves through their opinions. Facts are for smart people, opinions unleash intelligence. Instead of looking at students in the outdated concept of "fill 'em up" with information and send 'em out", we should be taking a serious look into growing and cultivating students' interests by enabling growth through communication and sharing of opinions. There are a high number of benefits to this, as these students will grow as more complete human beings, more expressive, and would learn to communicate efficiently.
So, how do we do this? Start offering classes with an extremely thin curriculum that is not set to be completed, but rather, to stimulate. Let me tell you, I've been in a class where a professor has said something controversial and BOOM! the room goes off in a buzz, arms start raising, students suddenly sit straight up, and the level of activity exponentially rises proportional to the day in day out "smart" teaching of "suck in this information for later". It gets to a point that when students are interested, because someone asks a question of interest to the whole class (or a part, even), that the professor has to reign in the conversation and direct it back to the lecture (most have a hard time doing this, because even they are enjoying the conversation).. which is BULL SHIT.
People just don't get that excited about their interests on a regular basis, let me tell you - I know this is opinion, but it might just as well be fact. Education systems need to stop thinking so damn linearly - it is, absolutely, a less efficient system in the long term development of students. I know most institutions will see it as a waste of resources, but I could easily argue that it will turn an institution from a regular, unoriginal system to a lively, feedback driven organism feeding off of the human element of people's minds. We need to have classes where going "off topic" is exactly what the class is designed for - let people be people and assert themselves in the eyes of their peers; this is a wise business tactic, as well, because it allows students to learn effective communication skills, it livens up the class room, and it is low stress, high reward. I'm sure many students would see it as pointless, but those who do engage (and trust me, I've been in several instances in which it involuntarily exploded in classes) will show their true colors and true potential.
The system is broken, but the human element is its most egregious, overlooked leak in a flawed system of education. Bring back the human element, and you will regain some appreciation, love, all while teaching people how to communicate effectively, passionately, intelligently with one another - the students walking out of that school system will be better adjusted, adaptable, communicative, and above all, have a clearer understanding of their own views.
Listening to: The Black Keys, "Howlin' For You"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)