Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Rargh
Scratch that last post. I am so over it. And yes, I am BIPOLAR. It's one of my qualities. Bah!
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
jkhgkdfgjkfldgjklfdjgdlfgjlk
好消息。 我好像徹底忘掉當初那個傷害我的人以及那個被放棄痛苦的感覺。
壞消息。 怎麼忘掉的方法是去想另外一個人呢？ WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 還偏偏是一個難搞， 過於自信，不誠實， 不能相信， 奇怪的人。 我是怎麼了？ 每一次都把自己陷在莫名奇妙的狀況。
我現在真的迫不及待趕快去上海。 如果每一次遇到難題能逃去另外一個國家， 那就好了。
壞消息。 怎麼忘掉的方法是去想另外一個人呢？ WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 還偏偏是一個難搞， 過於自信，不誠實， 不能相信， 奇怪的人。 我是怎麼了？ 每一次都把自己陷在莫名奇妙的狀況。
我現在真的迫不及待趕快去上海。 如果每一次遇到難題能逃去另外一個國家， 那就好了。
Monday, April 19, 2010
Existentialism, Feminism, and Potato Balls
Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir were lifetime lovers with polyamorous practices. Setting aside their less-than-virtuous lifestyles, some of the things they said really can make you think. Maybe this is some food for thought. Maybe it's gibberish bullcrap. But if you can fathom it, it is one interesting perspective on the purpose of man's existence.
Sartre the existentialist is quite different than the existentialism we know today with the substance beat out of it until nothing is left but BS. Most famous is probably his idea of "existence preceding essence." Man’s purpose is determined after he is created and born. Before giving meaning to himself, he simply is. Contrary to religions heralding a higher order, man has no predetermined reason to exist. Contrary to theories about human nature, man has no universally definitive essence. What he eventually chooses for himself after he enters the world becomes his being, or his essence.
There is nothing necessarily valid about a universally shared experience of existence. Existence is a subjective experience. Man wills himself to be something, and this something is not universally shared. When man makes his own experience and determines his own purpose, it is a subjective act. His experience is unique to himself, shared with no one else. This contradicts the idea of a universal truth. There is no essential truth. Individual experience is the universal truth.
Contrary to what others charge against existentialism, it is an optimistic outlook on human existence. It is optimistic because it allows for the possibility of complete unrestraint in action and grants complete agency to the individual. On the other hand, theories about human nature are pessimistic because they bind man to a structure, a set of constraints, that will subsequently determine how one can act.
Although insightful, I can't quite see eye to eye with the way he dismisses the poor, sad, and decrepit conditions one is born into. I cannot help but think Sartre is being a bit disingenuous when he talks about “every man realiz[ing] himself in realizing a type of humanity.” (Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism) He has this perspective because he is a European living in a time period that privileges Europeans. “Every purpose, even that of a Chinese, an Indian, or a Negro, can be understood by a European.” (ibid) Can it really? Their experiences are vastly different. It is arrogant, when one comes from a position of privilege, to say that this is the circumstances you were born into, don’t question it. Deal with it.
That makes me feel better. Anything I do from here on out will be my personal value judgment in regards to how I think the world I live in should be. And if I can't deal with a crappy situation, I can relegate my behavior to self-deception and hence avoid the anguish that comes with total responsibility and agency.
De Beauvoir is also an interesting character. Her idea of women as the second sex conceptualizes gender relations in a different way than how we might traditionally think of it, namely as an oppositional dynamic. Firstly, the definition of femininity can never be mentioned without discussing its relation to the conception of the other sex, masculinity. Femininity, as it stands, only has relevance relative to masculinity—it can never stand as an objective definition on its own. “A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man.” (de Beauvoir, The Second Sex) Woman, on the other hand, is presented as everything man is not.
In actuality, man and woman are not polar opposites, but positives and negatives, respectively. What is more interesting is de Beauvoir’s idea that man is the “neutral,” or the default. He represents, at once, the primary and the basic. He is the “absolute human type.” (ibid) Masculinity is the embodiment of “a direct and normal connection with the world,” whereas the female is not because of the particular biological qualities she possesses and simultaneously, the attributes she lacks. (ibid)
Just a dose of de Beauvoir.
Do you see anything wrong with the fact that the entire female population, on average, makes 77 cents to a man's dollar? I do. And if you do, then you're a feminist. There's nothing wrong with being a feminist. Most feminists are not bra-burning, obscenities-shouting, man-hating she-males. It's a little more subtle than that. If you value equality, if you feel that there is nothing inherent that makes men more superior earners, if you feel that the empowerment of women can only do good for the societies in which they live, then you are a feminist, and you should wear the badge with pride.
Gosh I love Porto's potato balls. Potato-ey, meaty, greasy, fried goodness. And lavender honey ice cream. Oh, the woes of balancing good food with a good figure. Sometimes I feel it's a tradeoff.
Sartre the existentialist is quite different than the existentialism we know today with the substance beat out of it until nothing is left but BS. Most famous is probably his idea of "existence preceding essence." Man’s purpose is determined after he is created and born. Before giving meaning to himself, he simply is. Contrary to religions heralding a higher order, man has no predetermined reason to exist. Contrary to theories about human nature, man has no universally definitive essence. What he eventually chooses for himself after he enters the world becomes his being, or his essence.
There is nothing necessarily valid about a universally shared experience of existence. Existence is a subjective experience. Man wills himself to be something, and this something is not universally shared. When man makes his own experience and determines his own purpose, it is a subjective act. His experience is unique to himself, shared with no one else. This contradicts the idea of a universal truth. There is no essential truth. Individual experience is the universal truth.
Contrary to what others charge against existentialism, it is an optimistic outlook on human existence. It is optimistic because it allows for the possibility of complete unrestraint in action and grants complete agency to the individual. On the other hand, theories about human nature are pessimistic because they bind man to a structure, a set of constraints, that will subsequently determine how one can act.
Although insightful, I can't quite see eye to eye with the way he dismisses the poor, sad, and decrepit conditions one is born into. I cannot help but think Sartre is being a bit disingenuous when he talks about “every man realiz[ing] himself in realizing a type of humanity.” (Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism) He has this perspective because he is a European living in a time period that privileges Europeans. “Every purpose, even that of a Chinese, an Indian, or a Negro, can be understood by a European.” (ibid) Can it really? Their experiences are vastly different. It is arrogant, when one comes from a position of privilege, to say that this is the circumstances you were born into, don’t question it. Deal with it.
That makes me feel better. Anything I do from here on out will be my personal value judgment in regards to how I think the world I live in should be. And if I can't deal with a crappy situation, I can relegate my behavior to self-deception and hence avoid the anguish that comes with total responsibility and agency.
De Beauvoir is also an interesting character. Her idea of women as the second sex conceptualizes gender relations in a different way than how we might traditionally think of it, namely as an oppositional dynamic. Firstly, the definition of femininity can never be mentioned without discussing its relation to the conception of the other sex, masculinity. Femininity, as it stands, only has relevance relative to masculinity—it can never stand as an objective definition on its own. “A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man.” (de Beauvoir, The Second Sex) Woman, on the other hand, is presented as everything man is not.
In actuality, man and woman are not polar opposites, but positives and negatives, respectively. What is more interesting is de Beauvoir’s idea that man is the “neutral,” or the default. He represents, at once, the primary and the basic. He is the “absolute human type.” (ibid) Masculinity is the embodiment of “a direct and normal connection with the world,” whereas the female is not because of the particular biological qualities she possesses and simultaneously, the attributes she lacks. (ibid)
Just a dose of de Beauvoir.
Do you see anything wrong with the fact that the entire female population, on average, makes 77 cents to a man's dollar? I do. And if you do, then you're a feminist. There's nothing wrong with being a feminist. Most feminists are not bra-burning, obscenities-shouting, man-hating she-males. It's a little more subtle than that. If you value equality, if you feel that there is nothing inherent that makes men more superior earners, if you feel that the empowerment of women can only do good for the societies in which they live, then you are a feminist, and you should wear the badge with pride.
Gosh I love Porto's potato balls. Potato-ey, meaty, greasy, fried goodness. And lavender honey ice cream. Oh, the woes of balancing good food with a good figure. Sometimes I feel it's a tradeoff.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Beautiful People Rule the World?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/14/heidi-montags-10-plastic_n_423855.html
I know this is old news in the world of celebritydom, but I came across Heidi Montag's controversial plastic surgery overkill while deciding to take a break from reading Weber.
Ok, honestly, she looked perfectly fine before the liposuction, Botox injections, lifts, and augmentations. It's ridiculous. The more images I saw of her on Google, the stupider I thought this girl was. She's spent thousands of dollars, suffered avoidable pain, gone beyond recognizability. If I was her mom, I would cry. "Why don't I recognize my beautiful daughter anymore?" And has it done much for her physical appearance? The answer to me, at least, is no. If I saw both Heidi's on the street, I would think the same thing: that's an attractive blonde. I certainly hope it's done something for her immense insecurity, because that's where this entire mess seems to stem from. I also heard a segment on NPR recently about how more attractive people have better chances of moving up the career ladder and being promoted in the workplace. I was going to try to find the piece, but got too lazy. Point of the story was, if you are physically attractive the potential to get far in your career is there over someone who is "average."
It just made me realize how shallow of a society we've become. Especially when you live in LA, you only have a few seconds most of the time to impress the opposite sex. How do you distinguish yourself from the hottie next to you to a guy you're interested in? By out-primping, out-pinching, out-exercising, out-plumping, out-beautifying over other girls. Maybe there is this 'race to the top' to see who can be the most beautiful, earn the most admirers, and swoon the most people. I'm really talking from a female's perspective. This might apply to guys too but I think males get a lot more leeway when it comes to points on physical appearance. I can't deny that I'm guilty of the same crime. I spend a lot of time thinking about how I look to the opposite sex, about what parts of my physical appearance needs work, about what outfits flatter my figure and what doesn't. I'm surrounded by beautiful people--at school, at clubs, at the gym--it can really make you think about whether you're up to par with people's standards of beauty. There are days when I feel like I can conquer the world, days where I feel super confident about myself. Then there are days when my self esteem droops and I just feel like an ugly duckling. Those are the days when I think about what's wrong with myself physically. I know, it's sad. I know, I shouldn't be thinking about these things. But I can't pretend that I don't have insecurities, like 99.9% of the people on this planet.
Here's a thought, and Dr. Seuss couldn't have said it better.
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.”
Why does it matter what other people think outside of the ones you care about? It's unquantifiable, but I don't want to look back and think, wow, why did I spend all that time trying to impress a person who doesn't remotely matter to or care about me? I guess one could argue it's human nature to want a plethora of admirers and envious people, but human nature can also be cannibalism and bestiality.
And I've come to realize something else among all this--that the times where I feel most beautiful is when I feel good about myself inside. Maybe that's the more important thing I need to work on--confidence that will stay with me after my face and figure start to sag. What a horrible thought, actually. BUT, next time when I think about whether a dress looks good on me and what other people might think of it, maybe I should spend that energy thinking about how I can better myself as a person. I think for most people the key to outer beauty is to channel the beauty you feel from within. Let that radiate, and people will naturally see and feel it. I hardly think that requires a nose or boob job as a prerequisite.
I know this is old news in the world of celebritydom, but I came across Heidi Montag's controversial plastic surgery overkill while deciding to take a break from reading Weber.
Ok, honestly, she looked perfectly fine before the liposuction, Botox injections, lifts, and augmentations. It's ridiculous. The more images I saw of her on Google, the stupider I thought this girl was. She's spent thousands of dollars, suffered avoidable pain, gone beyond recognizability. If I was her mom, I would cry. "Why don't I recognize my beautiful daughter anymore?" And has it done much for her physical appearance? The answer to me, at least, is no. If I saw both Heidi's on the street, I would think the same thing: that's an attractive blonde. I certainly hope it's done something for her immense insecurity, because that's where this entire mess seems to stem from. I also heard a segment on NPR recently about how more attractive people have better chances of moving up the career ladder and being promoted in the workplace. I was going to try to find the piece, but got too lazy. Point of the story was, if you are physically attractive the potential to get far in your career is there over someone who is "average."
It just made me realize how shallow of a society we've become. Especially when you live in LA, you only have a few seconds most of the time to impress the opposite sex. How do you distinguish yourself from the hottie next to you to a guy you're interested in? By out-primping, out-pinching, out-exercising, out-plumping, out-beautifying over other girls. Maybe there is this 'race to the top' to see who can be the most beautiful, earn the most admirers, and swoon the most people. I'm really talking from a female's perspective. This might apply to guys too but I think males get a lot more leeway when it comes to points on physical appearance. I can't deny that I'm guilty of the same crime. I spend a lot of time thinking about how I look to the opposite sex, about what parts of my physical appearance needs work, about what outfits flatter my figure and what doesn't. I'm surrounded by beautiful people--at school, at clubs, at the gym--it can really make you think about whether you're up to par with people's standards of beauty. There are days when I feel like I can conquer the world, days where I feel super confident about myself. Then there are days when my self esteem droops and I just feel like an ugly duckling. Those are the days when I think about what's wrong with myself physically. I know, it's sad. I know, I shouldn't be thinking about these things. But I can't pretend that I don't have insecurities, like 99.9% of the people on this planet.
Here's a thought, and Dr. Seuss couldn't have said it better.
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.”
Why does it matter what other people think outside of the ones you care about? It's unquantifiable, but I don't want to look back and think, wow, why did I spend all that time trying to impress a person who doesn't remotely matter to or care about me? I guess one could argue it's human nature to want a plethora of admirers and envious people, but human nature can also be cannibalism and bestiality.
And I've come to realize something else among all this--that the times where I feel most beautiful is when I feel good about myself inside. Maybe that's the more important thing I need to work on--confidence that will stay with me after my face and figure start to sag. What a horrible thought, actually. BUT, next time when I think about whether a dress looks good on me and what other people might think of it, maybe I should spend that energy thinking about how I can better myself as a person. I think for most people the key to outer beauty is to channel the beauty you feel from within. Let that radiate, and people will naturally see and feel it. I hardly think that requires a nose or boob job as a prerequisite.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
A Great Cause
I usually don't use my blog for promotional purposes. But this is worth the money. Wokai is an American-based NGO that lends money, from user donations, to rural entrepreneurs and families in China to start their businesses. After your donation is repaid you can choose to reinvest it toward new people who need it. Yes, it's microfinance. Yes, the repayment rate is super high (check out the website). Yes, it's legit. And yes, it's EMPOWERING.
I donated $50, but you can make a contribution as small as $10. It will make a difference!
http://www.wokai.org/
I donated $50, but you can make a contribution as small as $10. It will make a difference!
http://www.wokai.org/
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The World...where's it going?
Earthquakes.
Sweatshop labor.
Suicides.
War and innocent civilians.
Budget cuts in the UC system...both my undergrad majors are now defunct.
Nietzsche.
Just a few of the things getting me down this week.
Sweatshop labor.
Suicides.
War and innocent civilians.
Budget cuts in the UC system...both my undergrad majors are now defunct.
Nietzsche.
Just a few of the things getting me down this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)