Thursday, October 12, 2006
First term ends, another begins
I have been busy as HELL lately! My first term at Eckerd ended last night, and all signs seem to point toward A-town, which is a relief. The next term starts on October 21st, so I am only getting one week off before it is time to start hitting the books once again. I plan to catch up on some reading that is NOT class related. Likewise, I'll get back to blogging my thoughts more regularly, now that I am not writing paper after paper after paper. For the first time in my life, I was literally burining out. My final paper should have been the easiest of all, instead it became a monumental challenge.
The topic was the interplay of love and purpose in life. My thesis centered around two works from class, Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning(this should be required reading for all humans!!!), and a film called Tuesdays with Morrie. Tuesdays is based on a book by Mitch Albom. If you haven't seen it, check it out. It's excellent, despite originally being a made for TV movie. I plan to read the book when I have some time, which will be a while. The final selection I cited was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
All of the selections were tied together by the concepts of dedication to purpose, and love as the highest aspiration of Man. I originally thought I would blow through this particular essay in no time, but I did anything but. Between Friday the 6th and Wednesday the 11th, I rewrote, restructured, or recreated a vast majority of the paper at least three times. In the end, I tied it up the best I could and turned in what I had. My gut tells me it will be an 'A' paper, but it definitely was not the strong statement I was hoping to make when I started writing.
If there is one author I have come to hold in a higher plane of respect, it would be Frankl. No one I know has survived anything even approaching the hardship of a Nazi concentration camp, but hardly anyone I know is as philosophical and 'together' as Frankl was after having spent three years in places like Auschwitz and the Dachau complex. Three years of torture, starvation, and degradation didn't break the man. Instead, they strengthened him, and he returned to the world with a greater appreciation for life, a stronger concept of meaning, and a reverance for the idea of love. People shit on life, piss on meaning, and wipe their asses with love everyday. We whine and complain, when in reality we are generally soft, incredibly coddled, and largely self-obsessed. Even the poorest of our poor live in better conditions than nearly 50% of the world's population. I have come to realize that most of my countrymen are neither worthy of their freedoms, nor deserving of their comforts.
At one point in his narrative, Frankl declares a simple devide in humanity. He states that there are only two true races, the decent and the indecent. The decent are necessarily a minority, as it is always more work to be honest, honorable, and respectful in life. But he points out examples of camp inmates overcoming the digusting state of their lives, expressing decency, even as their world was being destroyed by men who were worse than rabid animals. I have had a long running fascination with World War II, and this, combined with my affections for existentialism, made reading Frankl's book something of a revelatory event. I find myself wishing for an opportunity to speak with the man. Sadly, he died of natural causes in 1997.
It is right to accept that decency, in the forms of dignity, self-respect, honesty, compassion, and honor, will always be an underdog in our material reality. The world's cowards, liars, fools, and egomaniacs will always outnumber the good. I think this is the natural order of things. Real leaders must be in the minority, and decency must always be struggling against the onslaught of indecency. Frankl makes a case for the value of tension and struggle. After reading his thoughts, I am inclined to agree. In fact, most of it falls right in line with the basic premise behind much of the Eastern and Western philosophy I have gravitated toward in my life. We need the push and pull, the proverbial yin and yang. It is a natural part of the balance. My only problem is with the idea that decent people should be passive or quiet about their beliefs, while the indecent dominate mainstream society. So many good people sit idly by, even as the shitstacks of this world push them aside, so that they can continue to soil the Earth with their presence.
It's a shame, but it is necessary. Knowing that doesn't make accepting it any easier...
p.s. The picture is of the real Morrie Schwartz. Another guy I would have liked to have a chat with.
Read or Post a Comment
i hope you'll let your avid readers know how you did on your final paper.
the frankl selection sounds interesting - like something i would find inspirational and thought-provoking, but with which i don't think i would agree. in particular, i don't like the premise of his which you laid out (that there are, in effect, two types of man). i recognize a dichotemy between good and evil in the world, but i've never warmed up to the idea that people are either one or the other. i look at our species as imperfect but not bad. i think our environment, more than almost anything else, dictates who we become - some people evolve into beings which are more susceptable to bad influences, others into those more receptive to good ones... but hardly ever do i find evidence of an observable and forthright distinction between the two. i think it's more likely that each of us is a walking, talking spectrum of qualities and attributes, strengths and weaknesses, values and principles, mannerisms, quirks, flaws, etc.
what do you think?
There was a time that I might have agreed with you, and there may be some good in all of us, but when you are talking about a group of human beings starving, torturing, and systematically exterminating another group, you're talking about more than bad influences. They were stuffing people into ovens, burning them in bonfires, dumping them in mass graves, etc. In Darfur, Congo, and Rwanda we have more recent examples of "ethnic cleansing", this time using machetes, rape, and even HIV as methods of elimination. There is something wholy evil and indecent about such acts. Those carrying out such acts are beyond redemption, IMO.
A little over a week ago, in this country, a man walks into an Amish schoolhouse, kills several young girls, none of whom had ever had any contact with the man before. That man was evil, and whatever redeeming characteristics he may have had are far outweighed by the evil.
I see your point, but we will most definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. That said, you should definitely read Frankl's book. It's a quick read and well worth it, trust me.
but isn't his point that that the decency in the world is far outweighed by the indecency? i could accept that there are in fact bad people out there - but not everyone falls into one of the two classifications. if you think they do, do you also think that such a vast majority as must be considered less-than-perfect deserve to be pegged in the same way as the leaders of rwanda and nazi germany?
Would I put them on the same level as genocidal maniacs? No, but in the context Frankl was referring to, which I didn't lay out in its entirety (READ THE BOOK!:)), it fits.
Frankl explores this particular opinion in the light of concentration camp reality. He saw Nazis treating Jews worse than animals, and he also saw Jews aligning themselves with said Nazis as a means to gaining power and perks in the camp. He speaks of Capos, which were fellow inmates who took on the roles of disciplinary intermediaries, assisting the Nazis with punishment and policing amongst inmates. He also mentions how quickly inmates turned to theft and betrayal of fellow inmates to perpetuate their own survival. It's really too much to explain here, as I'd have to cite whole pages to really flesh out the point.
The gist of the section mentioned is this: under duress, which is really the only true test of one's resolve, some people will maintain their decency, but in Frankl's experience, a majority made major value sacrifices in order to survive. He includes himself in the camp of those who made compromises. Some of that is environmental, but it is ultimately a choice. He knows it is possible, because he witnessed a very small number of cases where people refused to sacrifice their values, and ultimately sacrificed themselves. He recognizes his own failings when he says, and this is a paraphrase, "that the best of us did not survive the camps."
Keep in mind that I am strong believer in the notion that it is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees. Which is honestly one of the reasons I find Frankl's story so fascinating and inspirational. He did what he had to under the most extreme circumstances. Where I would have surely gotten myself killed in short order, he survived years.
I can't judge him a coward, because it takes a different kind of emotional and spiritual courage to sustain one's self under those conditions. I can't judge him as being weak, because it takes a special kind of strength to survive such adversities with your sanity, and humanity intact. The fact that he tried to contribute good to the world, despite having been subjected to so much evil, speaks to the real substance of his character. The fact that he recognizes his own failings and explores them honestly, something 99% of the population does NOT do, gives his opinions an added weight, IMO.
Bottom line, you need to read the book, as I am doing Frankl's argument a disservice here. If, after reading, you disagree, we'll simply agree to disagree and move on. :)
alright, alright, i'll read the damn book, lol.
Good decision. :)