In todays NYT article, the story of Sarah Gellert is proof of the importance of remaining positive in difficult times. Gellert, who lived through multiple wars, economic downturns, epidemics, deaths, divorce, and the rest of it, now describes everything as "wonderful." She probably described everything as wonderful in her youth as well. She was born in 1910, and has witnessed the problem of evil multiple times in her life. Yet she chooses to remain resolute. I find her extraordinary. I would like to share this story with my grandpa, who is quintessentially a pessimist, and may even personify the Problem of Evil himself. He loves to accuse everyone of wrong, refuses to apologize, and has no appreciation for anyone or anything. He is difficult to be with, especially when he badmouths people you love with no thought to consequence.
I think I am going to create a list of articles for my Nani to read. I want to give her the gift of the internet, and write her a letter describing all the things that are happening in the world. I do not believe she is isolated, but I would like to help her become more engaged with the world. She is ultimately a brilliant woman and her contributions should continue in her old age. I am convinced she was a primary force for my intellectual growth in the third grade. She gave me confidence, helped me with my writing assignments (She was an English teacher in India, and studied Philosophy in college in the 1930s British India, declined offers to study in England because she already had a 4 or 5 kids at the time, but continued to teach, and has been widowed some 30 years). Remarkable indeed! Time is a limited; the goals we set for ourselves must be achieved with urgency because there is never time.
I think there are two schools of thought on time, perhaps countless more. There is one school of thought, lets call it A, which states that life is short, so we must enjoy life thoroughly. We must seek out the pleasures, and the glories of this world and strive to attain the best for ourselves and families because time is limited. The assumption is there is nothing beyond this current life, so we must maximize the limited time we are here. There is another school, B, that states that life is short, and so we must use our time to achieve goals for our timeless future, in Paradise or Hell. According to B, life is about the decisions and choices we make that impact our salvation, and Judgement Day. The assumption here is that there is an afterlife. In both A and B, life is recognized as short. In both A and B, there is an understanding that life will end, whether now or in the future, doesn't really matter. It will end. The approaches are different, though. In A, we approach life positively, not as a rewards system, but life as an end in itself. In B, we approach life as a means to a greater goal, a larger end. How do these different approaches affect the decisions we make?
First, in B, we are motivated by invisible things. Not power, influence, money, or consumer goods. We are judged by the deeds, and the intents of our deeds. How can the economic system of cost benefit analysis account for invisible things? I don't know.
In A, we are motivated by tangible things: the feeling of love, the pursuit of happiness, the markers of economic success. All these are quantifiable. How many times have you fallen in love? When were you happy? What are the objects of your desire and fulfillment? These are all measurable.
In B, however, the measuring cannot be done by us. There is a third party evaluator who decides the worth and content of our deeds. We have a limited understanding of the Evaluator, but we believe He exists. And that He will judge us according to the laws of justice. The life around us will testify. Our limbs, our heart, our hands, our eyeballs, the plants, the earth, the objects of the earth will testify for or against us, confirming our testimonies. How extraordinary!
To spend the time performing in the rat race is not for me. It never has been for me. In high school, I refused to perform for the sole goal of getting into a top university. I thought it was a sham, to pretend to love school, be actively engaged with my studies, just so I could gain acceptance into the top schools. Instead, I chose to spend time with people I loved, people I learned from. I was intent on making a difference, because my time was in short supply. I did not argue with my mother over my late hours, grades or male friends. I saw everything as an end in itself. The calc classes I did not attend, I did not attend because there was no end in them for me. The hours spent hiding in the library, when classes were in session, the end was the conversation. The good and very interesting conversations that illuminated how others thought about things. The end was pleasure, curiosity. I have graduated, married and worked to know that most people who succeed subscribe to the rat race, the external markers of success. The consultants, managers, directors, ivy-league cohort subscribe to this rat race and I accept the rat race is good. In B, we are in a rat race, too, though the ends are different. Why not make B into A? Why not change the frame so that the rat race is beneficial to humanity, to the Evaluator, to religion? These are my random musing for today.
Basically, I think that the approach is integral to the goal. The positive approach to life is important to the overall quality of life. The things to be enjoyed, the finer things attain a temporary but satisfying function. To subscribe to A and B at the same time is the goal. And changing the frame to accommodate the different approaches is good, too.
I think I am going to create a list of articles for my Nani to read. I want to give her the gift of the internet, and write her a letter describing all the things that are happening in the world. I do not believe she is isolated, but I would like to help her become more engaged with the world. She is ultimately a brilliant woman and her contributions should continue in her old age. I am convinced she was a primary force for my intellectual growth in the third grade. She gave me confidence, helped me with my writing assignments (She was an English teacher in India, and studied Philosophy in college in the 1930s British India, declined offers to study in England because she already had a 4 or 5 kids at the time, but continued to teach, and has been widowed some 30 years). Remarkable indeed! Time is a limited; the goals we set for ourselves must be achieved with urgency because there is never time.
I think there are two schools of thought on time, perhaps countless more. There is one school of thought, lets call it A, which states that life is short, so we must enjoy life thoroughly. We must seek out the pleasures, and the glories of this world and strive to attain the best for ourselves and families because time is limited. The assumption is there is nothing beyond this current life, so we must maximize the limited time we are here. There is another school, B, that states that life is short, and so we must use our time to achieve goals for our timeless future, in Paradise or Hell. According to B, life is about the decisions and choices we make that impact our salvation, and Judgement Day. The assumption here is that there is an afterlife. In both A and B, life is recognized as short. In both A and B, there is an understanding that life will end, whether now or in the future, doesn't really matter. It will end. The approaches are different, though. In A, we approach life positively, not as a rewards system, but life as an end in itself. In B, we approach life as a means to a greater goal, a larger end. How do these different approaches affect the decisions we make?
First, in B, we are motivated by invisible things. Not power, influence, money, or consumer goods. We are judged by the deeds, and the intents of our deeds. How can the economic system of cost benefit analysis account for invisible things? I don't know.
In A, we are motivated by tangible things: the feeling of love, the pursuit of happiness, the markers of economic success. All these are quantifiable. How many times have you fallen in love? When were you happy? What are the objects of your desire and fulfillment? These are all measurable.
In B, however, the measuring cannot be done by us. There is a third party evaluator who decides the worth and content of our deeds. We have a limited understanding of the Evaluator, but we believe He exists. And that He will judge us according to the laws of justice. The life around us will testify. Our limbs, our heart, our hands, our eyeballs, the plants, the earth, the objects of the earth will testify for or against us, confirming our testimonies. How extraordinary!
To spend the time performing in the rat race is not for me. It never has been for me. In high school, I refused to perform for the sole goal of getting into a top university. I thought it was a sham, to pretend to love school, be actively engaged with my studies, just so I could gain acceptance into the top schools. Instead, I chose to spend time with people I loved, people I learned from. I was intent on making a difference, because my time was in short supply. I did not argue with my mother over my late hours, grades or male friends. I saw everything as an end in itself. The calc classes I did not attend, I did not attend because there was no end in them for me. The hours spent hiding in the library, when classes were in session, the end was the conversation. The good and very interesting conversations that illuminated how others thought about things. The end was pleasure, curiosity. I have graduated, married and worked to know that most people who succeed subscribe to the rat race, the external markers of success. The consultants, managers, directors, ivy-league cohort subscribe to this rat race and I accept the rat race is good. In B, we are in a rat race, too, though the ends are different. Why not make B into A? Why not change the frame so that the rat race is beneficial to humanity, to the Evaluator, to religion? These are my random musing for today.
Basically, I think that the approach is integral to the goal. The positive approach to life is important to the overall quality of life. The things to be enjoyed, the finer things attain a temporary but satisfying function. To subscribe to A and B at the same time is the goal. And changing the frame to accommodate the different approaches is good, too.
Comments
Post a Comment