Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Absurdism?

As my brain is still buzzing from the math test I doubt this will be nearly as coherent as my other posts, so I apologize for that. But it's clearing fast, and I'm realizing I don't care to write about anything. I could address the discussion Alyssa and I were having over absurdism, but that's much shorter than I want it to be. I do need a post however, so let's do that. Before we go into it I'll give you something to munch on. Why can these so-called absurdists only show the absurdity of the world by presenting their stories with an absurd premise? I thought logical people called that begging the question.


I'll assume you all noticed our discussion, Kunkle brought attention to it after all, and a few probably overheard us. For the benefit of those that didn't I will try to give a synopsis. It was something along the lines of, I was losing because I hadn't thought about the fight. I was asking what's the meaning of it and she recognized that it didn't matter if I knew the point if it meant something to them.

She's right, of course, it doesn't matter if I can understand the meaning or not. What does matter though, is the amount of effort put into the performance. Not just during it, but in preparation of it. Some may argue it took more effort to try and put emotions or feelings into animal sounds, and if you believe that I have no argument against you. There's no point, you believe it takes more effort to be animal than to be human. Were the gutteral animal cries the best their effort could produce? Couldn't they do better? Couldn't they do it human?

If you want to argue that animal sounds are better or equal to some glorious speech made so all can understand then I have nothing for you. By that fact, you believe that anything can be art. Drawing from that statement, then I propose that daily conversation is art as well. So why not talk to others in your animal language? It's no different, whether talking, discussing, singing, playing an instrument, or writing a novel you're attempting to deliver a message. And it's best if that message can be understood.

Maybe we're turning to an age where people don't care to have their messages understood. But then I propose that they've taken individualism to a dangerous level. Not an extreme, it's not very smart to deliver a message that won't be understood. People wouldn't buy it and you'd be forced to fend for yourself. Perhaps that's better, to teach people to think for themselves. Some people need to learn that skill, and maybe only those really needing to learn it are trying to turn art into this animalistic orgy of sounds. So perhaps I'll let you run your course, it's only you that will suffer from it. I don't intend to try and help you when you realize how much you've alienated yourselves from being human.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Destruction of People due to Apathy

There's an answer to a question I've held ever since I've entered high school. And the answer is more terrifying than one I've ever found. I got the idea to write this after talking about blogs on the first day and Justin told me that "Whenever someone says something and I don't know what they're talking about, I'm just like 'Yea totally, I think you're right because you sound sure of yourself.'" I couldn't understand that statement and then I realized that's how we've gotten where we are now.



The question was, how did we end up this way? Originally I wanted to blame the system, this was the easy way out of course, but it also isn't necessarily a wrong answer. There's multitudes of papers on the subject that do a very good job of convincing people that they're not at fault. They say that they're all victims of the society, or system, they're living in. This may be the right answer, but I don't buy into that and I don't believe any of you do either.

I've had arguments on the subject with my father too many times, he believes the system runs everything, that social factors are the only thing that matter. He has a favorite phrase to utter every time I bring up someone like Barack Obama, a man who, under this system, shouldn't have even had a chance to run for president. That phrase is "Well it's the exception that proves the rule." What? Exceptions don't prove rules, they break them. Scientists don't take a theory with one exception and accept it as truth simply because "The exception proves the rule."

So no, I don't buy the idea that society is to blame. I don't believe capitalism allows those with bad intentions to get greater profits. I believe the world will get exactly what it deserves. If people insist on being apathetic then they can't complain when the world comes crashing down around them. They deserve to suffer the consequences of their apathy.

Justin agreed with my blog simply because he didn't want to look further into it. While Kelsey came in and found the one point that I slipped up on. I was impressed, I didn't catch it.


Apathy and a refusal to see what's going on around you is why we are in the state we are. If everyone continues to not think about things, really think, you're going to lose. I don't mean go out and research other's opinions, that's not thinking. If you just go to the opinion section of a paper you're getting someone elses thoughts. If you want to think you have to do it yourself, no one can think for you, no one can tell you the truth. If you don't think about your opinions you're taking them on faith and maybe that's enough for some people, but for those I say "Good Luck!" If you truly think your faith can save you then I can't reason with you, and you shouldn't be reading this because you disagreed with me in the first blog I wrote.


If you're still looking for me to bluntly point out the answer to the question, no I did not answer it in the last paragraph. Apathy and blindness are a product, a product of your human mind. Apathy is a conscious decision by you to not look deeper and critically think about something. The reason we're in the state we are is people, people like you and me, who are to apathetic to take a look at what's really destroying the world. People are the most important thing to the world right now, we hold the power to save or destroy it. And it's not a majority decision, the choice is in all of us.

The Depreciative Trend of Subjective Media

I've recently noticed a certain trend happening in all forms of media lately. Our current authors, directors, musicians, and the creative engines of our society in general have taken it upon themselves to create a new class of intelligentsia where everything is subjective.

I was tired of it when I first heard about a painter who would take hours to create something that could be replicated by giving a tantrum-throwing four-year-old a paintbrush and a few paint cups. I was told that it was "genius" and that the paintings were being sold for thousands of dollars. I was confused so I asked my mom, who told me the story, if it was really true. She told me of course it was, beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. But it wasn't beautiful, and no one has given me a reason for why a random spattering of paint was put under the facade of genius.

A different type of horror is arising as well, though it's in the same vein. There's an enormous amount of art that doesn't even have a meaning. But it does, or at least we're told it does. With these last two stories we've read I had to wonder, why? Why did someone write these stories? What purpose do they serve? What message do they send? And maybe the second one is part of a larger purpose, we didn't get the full story after all. But the first one was presented as a whole story, but I couldn't find the meaning to it. Sure the father refused to let go of the past, and the child was torn between pleasing his father and facing the consequences of his actions. But those ideas were only gotten after we tore the story to shreds trying to find meaning. What's preventing authors from just telling their story? Why are we entering this trend of layering everything until it seems as though there is no meaning at all? Why do we assume meanings are more meaningful when they're hidden?

I've seen such an occurance with other types of media as well. I recently finished an extremely well designed game, but the story and gameplay were held in seperate rooms, where you could only look at the story through a small hole and there was a curtain in the way. The creator attempted to justify himself by saying that the game was deeper than saving the princess. He tried to say it was about loss and regret, but only those taking shots in the dark are barely grasping the surface of his true "meaning". Why are creators so obsessed with hiding their meaning? If you have something good to say, or something meaningful to say you're shouting it from the rooftops, not hiding it in the sewars.


The only reason to hide something is if you're not proud of it, you stole it or it's not good in the first place.

Why wouldn't an author be proud of his work?
Why would an author steal work and pretend it's his own?
Why would an author publish something that doesn't have a good message?