Leadership Isn't About Managing Others, It's About Managing Yourself
Many people portray leaders as executives of large groups. Those who are the boss. Those you have to respect. In reality, that perspective is a truism. Leaders come in different shapes and sizes, cultivate different methods, and have different personalities. But the greatest leaders have one thing in common - a strong sense of self. They know who they are. And that remains challenging and difficult for many individuals throughout the century who desire to overcome the shallow layers of their own mediocrity. More challenging than you think. A great leader, no matter if it is Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or even Jesus, know that the only way to lead others is to know where they came from and why. This sentiment must indeed overcome the fragility of our own narcissism, doubt, and fear. Especially the criticism and doubts of others. A great leader is a persistent leader. In fact, this could be summed up in George Bernard Shaw's aphorism "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” A leader is a person who is true to their word, yet has the humility to demonstrate their ambitions through example rather than self-glorification. A true leader conceals their own purpose and shows the world what they have.
Perhaps, what delineates a person with unwavering ambition and self-knowledge from a maniac? It comes in two words: willpower and character. With willpower, one could progress towards their goal with unwavering concentration and precision. With the cultivation of character, the person can develop a sense of self-understanding, a sympathy for others, and a conscience to adhere to. A maniac on the other hand, believes in grandiose dreams, as in, dreams that he or she are divine entities. A narcissist shows the world their ambitions, rather than the effort to demonstrate these ambitions. In essence, great people show, stupid people tell.
In reality, life changes. We experience new things. But this doesn't deter your dream. And do not fall prey to the idea that life changes and therefore, your ambitions change. This is where persistence and adaptability play. Persistence is the mentality that you are willing to move two mountains, and that no matter what you will do it. Adaptability is the idea that you are willing to survive the circumstances of the present, yet still commit to the future. In reality, a true leader, a great leader is a person who has refined themselves through self-introspection.
Perhaps, what delineates a person with unwavering ambition and self-knowledge from a maniac? It comes in two words: willpower and character. With willpower, one could progress towards their goal with unwavering concentration and precision. With the cultivation of character, the person can develop a sense of self-understanding, a sympathy for others, and a conscience to adhere to. A maniac on the other hand, believes in grandiose dreams, as in, dreams that he or she are divine entities. A narcissist shows the world their ambitions, rather than the effort to demonstrate these ambitions. In essence, great people show, stupid people tell.
In reality, life changes. We experience new things. But this doesn't deter your dream. And do not fall prey to the idea that life changes and therefore, your ambitions change. This is where persistence and adaptability play. Persistence is the mentality that you are willing to move two mountains, and that no matter what you will do it. Adaptability is the idea that you are willing to survive the circumstances of the present, yet still commit to the future. In reality, a true leader, a great leader is a person who has refined themselves through self-introspection.
The Tragedy of the Commons and Nonviolence
What is "The Tragedy of the Commons"? Perhaps you might have heard about it in sociology class, or even a course on economics. Perhaps not. The "Tragedy of the Commons" is an idea which highlights the consequences which emerge from a society of self interest. Being that Hardin is an ecologist, he mainly examines the ways in which various animal cultures thrive or struggle. He discovered something quite profound. According to Hardin, if there is a society in which people do not strive for the common good, but for the expedience of their own self-interest, then that society will soon be deprived of its resources and prosperity. Hardin, argues that it remains necessary for individuals to pursue the interest of improving society. However, this isn't his most interesting conclusion. Hardin then states that there must be a mechanism which prevents these goods from being deprived and thus, a mechanism which regulates the extremities of self-interest and protects the common good. Hardin, indeed, conveys an insightful truth about the potential geopolitical and ecological catastrophes which emerge from climate change.
In reality, I am not spending my sweet time to disavow the truth about climate change. That isn't the premise of this small essay. I might presume that you would conclude that the effects of climate change are deleterious and imminent, based on the research studies as provided below. This paper aims to emphasize the necessity of redefining our own values in the presence of a magnanimous tragedy. This paper emphasizes the importance of contemplation and the power of redemptive suffering. This paper emphasizes the revival what Martin Luther King says "a marvelous new militancy" to counter the opposition of our leaders with a faith, a love, and hope for the future of the human race. The only way to counter opposition is to disarm them with love. We must have hope, and with hope, the despair of defeat eviscerates into the fire of victory.
And the only way to foster and consolidate this love is to pursue the interests of society over our own trivial ambitions. It is to defend our own integrity through defending the integrity of others. From this, what might seem necessary to do? Read. Participate in your community. Contact your congressperson. But most importantly, have hope. Cultivate this attitude and you disarm the most powerful. And the only way to do this is to look within your own identity, and envision what makes you happy and worthy, and to embrace every fragment and parcel of yourself.
In reality, in order to promote a culture of self-sacrifice, rather than self-interest, we must make an example to others. We must have the bravery to stand up to the numerous who mock us, who bully us, and who deny our own sense of self. And we must do this with bravery and nonviolence. From this, I argue that nonviolence leads us to redefine the values of society. It will be a way in which the evils of humanity are not conveyed as issues of public policy, but the issues of our own integrity. It is not through speeches of optimism that nonviolence fully manifests itself. Rather, it is through our eyes of joy and the curl of our lips as many mock us and spit at us. That requires bravery - and this bravery is indeed rare.
Here are the links to research studies I mentioned
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/research
In reality, I am not spending my sweet time to disavow the truth about climate change. That isn't the premise of this small essay. I might presume that you would conclude that the effects of climate change are deleterious and imminent, based on the research studies as provided below. This paper aims to emphasize the necessity of redefining our own values in the presence of a magnanimous tragedy. This paper emphasizes the importance of contemplation and the power of redemptive suffering. This paper emphasizes the revival what Martin Luther King says "a marvelous new militancy" to counter the opposition of our leaders with a faith, a love, and hope for the future of the human race. The only way to counter opposition is to disarm them with love. We must have hope, and with hope, the despair of defeat eviscerates into the fire of victory.
And the only way to foster and consolidate this love is to pursue the interests of society over our own trivial ambitions. It is to defend our own integrity through defending the integrity of others. From this, what might seem necessary to do? Read. Participate in your community. Contact your congressperson. But most importantly, have hope. Cultivate this attitude and you disarm the most powerful. And the only way to do this is to look within your own identity, and envision what makes you happy and worthy, and to embrace every fragment and parcel of yourself.
In reality, in order to promote a culture of self-sacrifice, rather than self-interest, we must make an example to others. We must have the bravery to stand up to the numerous who mock us, who bully us, and who deny our own sense of self. And we must do this with bravery and nonviolence. From this, I argue that nonviolence leads us to redefine the values of society. It will be a way in which the evils of humanity are not conveyed as issues of public policy, but the issues of our own integrity. It is not through speeches of optimism that nonviolence fully manifests itself. Rather, it is through our eyes of joy and the curl of our lips as many mock us and spit at us. That requires bravery - and this bravery is indeed rare.
Here are the links to research studies I mentioned
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/research
Why Culture Is Important
Love your country, Love your culture, Love your constitution, but be open to the ways of the world and don’t sway yourself in vitriolic ideas. In order to be proud of your culture or your country, you must dispel two notions: the shallow optimism of globalism, and the war-mongering dogma of nationalism. Let me show you an example, in 1900, an esteemed professor named William Everett delivered a vigorous oration in Harvard University. The title of the lecture is called “Patriotism”. In this lecture, Professor Everett espouses the ideals of his country, and also pays reverence to foreigners who adore their countries- or fatherland- as well. He then quotes Cicero, by stating the aphorism " Cari sunt parentes, cari liberi, cari familiar es, propin qui; sed omnes hominum caritates una patria complexa est.", which simply means ("Dear are parents, dear are children, dear are friends and relations; but all affections to all men are embraced in country alone.” As the lecture continued, Professor Everett delivered a statement that, although common, becomes morally condemning in the latter half of the 20th century. He states “Criticism of the management of the war may be allowable; of the fact of the war, it is treason. And the word for the patriot is, "Our country, right or wrong."” This idea has been the rhetoric of German, French, Russian, Japanese, American and British nationalists in World War I and World War II, as well as future wars in the Cold War.
What does it mean for someone to be a patriot? What is the difference between cultural pride and patriotism? Can you love your heritage more than you love your country? Why has nationalism bred inner domestic division of races and creeds? These are naïve questions, but they grow complex. I answer that patriotism is a system of dogmas. I also answer that every dogma has a flaw. There are those who disagree to dogmas, those who hold indifference- and those who fanatically adhere to it no matter what. Patriotism may be a love of country and its ideals, but radical forms of it can lead to innumerable wars, suppression of free speech, calumny, and even youth dissidence. So, what is my conclusion for all of this? As I will reiterate, I will say again: Love your country, love your culture, love your constitution, but be open to the ways of the world and do not adhere to radical ideas. I adhere to a quote of George Santayana, which states “A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world.”
I encourage you embrace other cultures. Listen to Yoruba music, eat Filipino food, listen to Arab poetry, love Tahitian dance, and when older, get an internship overseas, and make many friends from both hemispheres. Yet, you should always value the family that loves you, the country that sustained you, and the people that cherish your ideals. This is an ideal that cannot falter. Unfortunately, this ideal is dissipating like aqueous matter to air. In the modern world, we are filled with shallow optimisms. Although, we hope for technological advancement, social progression, and intellectual development, we still delight petty dogmas, encourage racial and cultural division, and rely on emotion or inefficacious tenets to carry our fanatical ideals. We are consumed in our hubris. The real root of the problem is bigotry and ignorance, not love of country.
Does this idealism comply with the modern globalist world? Yes and no. Globalism can damage traditions through extreme forms of cultural migration, religious repression, rampant consumerism, and overindulging multinational corporations. Nevertheless, there are benefits as well. In a globalist society, free-trade, when taken moderately, efficiently sustains the economic well being of corporations and their consumers. Cultural influence can be seen through media outlets, cuisine, and military prowess of Japan, Germany, and the United States. These are pivotal for a country’s might. Nevertheless, Globalism can lead to nationalism. For example, due to a lack of even moderate border-restriction in Germany, Austria, Greece, and the Balkans, many locals became disquieted, which thereby triggered hysterical, partially ethnocentric, and xenophobic trends in culture. For example, reactionary groups in Europe has gone significantly more popular over the past couple years. The rise of Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom has spewed in a new form of cultural panic. Everyone should be proud of their culture. This means that each culture should preserve its thoughts, philosophies, and customs. I am aware that all forms of cultural suppression are atrocious and must be avoided. As I said “Everyone should pride their culture”, this means that they should preserve its held customs, not subjugate ideals.
What does it mean for someone to be a patriot? What is the difference between cultural pride and patriotism? Can you love your heritage more than you love your country? Why has nationalism bred inner domestic division of races and creeds? These are naïve questions, but they grow complex. I answer that patriotism is a system of dogmas. I also answer that every dogma has a flaw. There are those who disagree to dogmas, those who hold indifference- and those who fanatically adhere to it no matter what. Patriotism may be a love of country and its ideals, but radical forms of it can lead to innumerable wars, suppression of free speech, calumny, and even youth dissidence. So, what is my conclusion for all of this? As I will reiterate, I will say again: Love your country, love your culture, love your constitution, but be open to the ways of the world and do not adhere to radical ideas. I adhere to a quote of George Santayana, which states “A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world.”
I encourage you embrace other cultures. Listen to Yoruba music, eat Filipino food, listen to Arab poetry, love Tahitian dance, and when older, get an internship overseas, and make many friends from both hemispheres. Yet, you should always value the family that loves you, the country that sustained you, and the people that cherish your ideals. This is an ideal that cannot falter. Unfortunately, this ideal is dissipating like aqueous matter to air. In the modern world, we are filled with shallow optimisms. Although, we hope for technological advancement, social progression, and intellectual development, we still delight petty dogmas, encourage racial and cultural division, and rely on emotion or inefficacious tenets to carry our fanatical ideals. We are consumed in our hubris. The real root of the problem is bigotry and ignorance, not love of country.
Does this idealism comply with the modern globalist world? Yes and no. Globalism can damage traditions through extreme forms of cultural migration, religious repression, rampant consumerism, and overindulging multinational corporations. Nevertheless, there are benefits as well. In a globalist society, free-trade, when taken moderately, efficiently sustains the economic well being of corporations and their consumers. Cultural influence can be seen through media outlets, cuisine, and military prowess of Japan, Germany, and the United States. These are pivotal for a country’s might. Nevertheless, Globalism can lead to nationalism. For example, due to a lack of even moderate border-restriction in Germany, Austria, Greece, and the Balkans, many locals became disquieted, which thereby triggered hysterical, partially ethnocentric, and xenophobic trends in culture. For example, reactionary groups in Europe has gone significantly more popular over the past couple years. The rise of Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom has spewed in a new form of cultural panic. Everyone should be proud of their culture. This means that each culture should preserve its thoughts, philosophies, and customs. I am aware that all forms of cultural suppression are atrocious and must be avoided. As I said “Everyone should pride their culture”, this means that they should preserve its held customs, not subjugate ideals.
Why Leaders Should Relish History
What is history? Is it an rigorous assessment of past events? Or is it a person’s past? For me, history entails to different connotations. Yet, despite these contextual differences, history embodies the same idea. It describes who we are. It is the identity of the human race. History never conveys itself through the authority of philosophers, political scientists, evolutionary biologists, or historiographers. Rather, history conveys itself through the songs of the past, either through the ballads of Bob Dylan or the string quartets of Mozart. History conveys itself through the comedies of Shakespeare and through the tragedies of Euripides. History conveys itself through the dialogues of Plato and the letters of Rilke. In essence, history seldom conveys the irrelevance of past ideas and past events, but rather the power of the past in shaping the future. How does it do so? Through the emotions, artistry, and philosophies of past thinkers, the reader is liberated from the constraints and demands of autocratic tendencies in society. Through the wisdom of the past, the reader acquires fortitude and optimism in order to bear the suffering of life and fight for the decency of others. In essence, I support Nietzsche's idea of history: that many people misinterpret history as a matter of convenience, rather than a matter of personal growth.
To begin, what do I mean by convenience? People usually visit historical monuments or read historical documents not for the sake of awe, but for the sake of personal attention. Therefore, in this sense, alluding to the wisdom of these masterpieces and contextualizing these passages for the problems of the future is more profound than memorizing bland flashcard terms, taking quizzes, and most importantly, taking selfies. In essence, history is meant for personal contemplation, personal empowerment, and personal growth, rather than social expediency.
To begin, what do I mean by convenience? People usually visit historical monuments or read historical documents not for the sake of awe, but for the sake of personal attention. Therefore, in this sense, alluding to the wisdom of these masterpieces and contextualizing these passages for the problems of the future is more profound than memorizing bland flashcard terms, taking quizzes, and most importantly, taking selfies. In essence, history is meant for personal contemplation, personal empowerment, and personal growth, rather than social expediency.
The Art of Self-Examination
Who are we? That's a cliched but profound question. But perhaps I could rearrange it a little: Why I am I thinking about that? What leads me to introspect my own identity? What motivates me to understand myself? The Indian Sage, Ramana Maharishi repeated these very same questions. He asked his followers to repeat such phrases many times. As they did, they entered a state of blissful ecstasy. They begin to truly introspect their own nature as human beings. In this article, I will reiterate the question of Ramana Maharishi, although less efficiently. My answer to this question is this: "I'll find out". Because, in reality, I cannot define yourself in the entirety of a simple sentence. I could devise a purpose, but is this purpose really what makes me genuine? That's the next question. In reality, this article is meant to redefine one idea: Know thyself.
In reality, it is difficult to know yourself. But is it impossible? Absolutely not. You will end up knowing yourself. Nevertheless, you could define your life purpose, but be prepared to face dissatisfaction, if the odds are against you. In reality, the problem with knowing yourself is not a matter of giving into personality deficiencies. It's a matter of accepting the past and accepting struggle, which embodies the unusual beauty of life. By all means, go pursue your goal.. It is necessary and imminent to foster a spirit of ambition. However, in order .to really know yourself, you have to determine whether if such desires genuine.
. Tell yourself, why do I want to pursue this goal? How much of an impact can it make towards your community or society? If you ask questions like these, then surely, you will achieve a greater sense of purpose. . As Socrates once said "The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living". You must examine who you are and the best way to do that is to analyze your motives.
The One-Dimensionality of the Left, Center, and Right
People have tested my loyalty to my own political predispositions. Many say, "Are you republican?" or "Are you a democrat?" In my world things are more complicated than that. People have presumed that I am a centrist, which in reality, means many things - all of which I lack adherence to. In essence, I really don't belong to any defined dogma, because if I do, I don't have control over my own beliefs - the group does. In reality, the idea that everybody has to pick a group and follow with it, remains baffling to me. In essence, politics should be analyzed through a variety of different lenses, and I think our next generation has to see the motives of different groups in light of how the group emphasizes the enforcement of its values. Is the group more or less flexible to their dogmas? Are the groups exclusive or rigid towards outsiders? Such ideas are fully articulated through the writings of the famed sociologist, Robert Nisbet.
Robert Nisbet emphasizes the significance of communities in shaping left-right ideologies. From that, he devises four terms: liberal monist, liberal pluralist, conservative monist, and conservative pluralist. A monist espouses an idea which binds an individual, their community, and their government. A clear instance of liberal monism is Karl Marx, as communism binds the motivations of the individual, the community, and the state. Furthermore, a clear instance of conservative monism is Joseph de Maistre, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church binds all aspects of society, from policymaking to social etiquette. However, pluralism embraces diverse ideas and emphasizes limited government. The writings of Peter Kropotkin serve as frameworks for liberal pluralism, as Kropotkin is against the coercive powers of the state and emphasizes the rights of groups, mainly workers. However, the writings of Edmund Burke embody conservative pluralism, as Burke warns against the evils of government and emphasizes the necessity of traditional social groups, mainly churches.
Consequently, Nisbet’s insight reveals an inherent flaw in my thinking. Before, I regarded politics as a left-right issue. For instance, if a person is conservative, he or she advocates limited government, free market capitalism, and at times, religious orthodoxy. If a person adheres to liberal ideas or any strand of leftism, then they legitimize the authority of the state, civil rights legislation, and the taxation of large corporations. Therefore, in this sense, liberals, as many conceive it, are collectivists, while conservatives remain individualists. This idea does not resonate in Nisbet. Nisbet would argue that this binary left-right thinking is too simplistic. Instead, Nisbet emphasizes the significance of communities in shaping left-right ideologies. Therefore, Nisbet’s insights shed clarity on modern politics. He provides an efficient framework to go beyond mainstream ideas on politics.
Robert Nisbet emphasizes the significance of communities in shaping left-right ideologies. From that, he devises four terms: liberal monist, liberal pluralist, conservative monist, and conservative pluralist. A monist espouses an idea which binds an individual, their community, and their government. A clear instance of liberal monism is Karl Marx, as communism binds the motivations of the individual, the community, and the state. Furthermore, a clear instance of conservative monism is Joseph de Maistre, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church binds all aspects of society, from policymaking to social etiquette. However, pluralism embraces diverse ideas and emphasizes limited government. The writings of Peter Kropotkin serve as frameworks for liberal pluralism, as Kropotkin is against the coercive powers of the state and emphasizes the rights of groups, mainly workers. However, the writings of Edmund Burke embody conservative pluralism, as Burke warns against the evils of government and emphasizes the necessity of traditional social groups, mainly churches.
Consequently, Nisbet’s insight reveals an inherent flaw in my thinking. Before, I regarded politics as a left-right issue. For instance, if a person is conservative, he or she advocates limited government, free market capitalism, and at times, religious orthodoxy. If a person adheres to liberal ideas or any strand of leftism, then they legitimize the authority of the state, civil rights legislation, and the taxation of large corporations. Therefore, in this sense, liberals, as many conceive it, are collectivists, while conservatives remain individualists. This idea does not resonate in Nisbet. Nisbet would argue that this binary left-right thinking is too simplistic. Instead, Nisbet emphasizes the significance of communities in shaping left-right ideologies. Therefore, Nisbet’s insights shed clarity on modern politics. He provides an efficient framework to go beyond mainstream ideas on politics.
The Paradox of Dominance
Dominance has strong connotations. When people convey themselves as dominant, they project a fantasized, insecure, and petulant personality, to promote, what they call, alphas. Those who disagree with such predicaments are ridiculed as beta males. Such trends in culture remain odious if not disingenuous to the integrity of one’s own individuality. In essence, dominance does not manifest itself in implementing body-language techniques or even a hyperactive sense of assertiveness towards aversive personalities. Rather, such actions, if taken to such extremities, can lead you to assume a pathological, narcissistic, if not, insincere persona, apathetic to the needs of your peers. A true person who is dominant, does not care about dominance. He or she has the confidence and the competence to transform themselves from their own unique tendencies and desires. They don’t need to form new hyperactive feminine, non-binary, or masculine identities.The question of true dominance, in essence, does not gravitate from the desire to succeed. Rather it concerns the desire for self-mastery. For self-mastery is the essence of success. True confidence is a matter of personal conviction, rather than the conviction of others. True confidence is a matter of inward introspection, rather than outward inspiration.
A person who is truly confident does not yearn to win the trust of those deemed greater than him or her. They know that they have the capacity to achieve greatness., regardless of approval. A person who is truly dominant has their values defined, even though these values are not mainstream. A person who is dominant has mastered their own flaws, yet acknowledges that there are struggles yet to come. In essence, dominance does not project itself into gender-related archetypes, for such conceptions are immature, simplistic, nonetheless, collectivistic frameworks in defining personality. True dominance is the ability to master oneself in the face of a society of rejection, group-think, and the most pernicious, spiritual isolation. True dominance lies on dominating oneself, rather than dominating others.
So what do I ask of you? I ask you to listen to Emerson, who states “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.” “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” “ I I ask you to listen to Malcolm X, who states I do not pretend to be a divine man, but I do believe in divine guidance, divine power, and in the fulfillment of divine prophecy. I am not educated, nor am I an expert in any particular field but I am sincere, and my sincerity is my credentials. I ask you to listen to Shakespeare, who states” God has given you one face, and you make yourself another.” And finally, I ask you to listen to Socrates, who states “The Unexamined life is not worth living”.The world is more intricate and complex than the peer-pressured projection of narrow, binary, and simplistic archetypes. The true step to personal growth is to acknowledge such a reality. In essence, a person who truly strives and prospers finds happiness in themselves, rather than in the interests of groups or even famous speakers.
The Gathering Storm: AI, Genomics, Climate Change and Human Progress
Machine learning, Neuralink, Climate change, Self-driving cars, Universal Basic Income- these remains the trends of the next generation. Many innovators and visionaries such as Elon Musk have envisioned a society of technological advancement and scientific achievement. Musk has surely manifested this desire through his development of various companies and initiatives such as Spacex, Tesla, and now, Neuralink. Furthermore, the companies of Silicon Valley are implementing new technologies to facilitate economic growth. Companies such as Amazon, Google, and even Microsoft design intricate machine learning algorithms for the engineering of self-driving cars and trucks. Neuroscience and Astrophysical research has discovered hidden aspects of human nature and the nature which surrounds us. Nevertheless, despite these powerful achievements lays an inherent dryness and pessimism which plagues us. This dryness and pessimism remains inexplicable, yet defines the very fervor of technological progress, if not, the ethos of modern society. It seems that we revert into the mindset that human progress manifests itself through technological achievements - and that the rigors of science only provides answers inherent in our own human nature. That, indeed speaks alot of truth.
Yet,the rigors of scientific discovery and technological achievement does not provide answers in preventing fanaticism. That requires something else. Yes, anthroplogists, physicists, neuroscientists, and psychologists must question every facet of conventional wisdom - which remains very crucial for the well-being of society. But it takes a philosopher, social critic, and even an activist to stand up for the integrity of others and fight against the depravities, injustice, and oppression which contaminates the moral fabric of all societies. Yet, like scientists, activists provide a defined framework. In essence, what needs to happen now is to pursue activism and science not as separate entities, but as the same vision, What is this vision, perhaps? True progress is achieved if scientific inquiry and technological advancement not only improves the conditions of living in society such as improved life expectancy, the vaccination of diseases, but it ameliorates engrained socio-economic conditions as well and seeks to facilitate creative methods in alleviating deprivation poverty, malnutrition, heightened levels of food scarcity, and even improving the cognitive skills and capacities for children in education. Only the rigors of the scientific method can really determine what remains healthy or even contaminated for the well-being of humans, Not only that, it provides sufficient, out-of the box thinking strategies and solutions to alleviate human well-being. In essence, scientific inquiry is a means, or a tool for an even greater end - which is human flourishing in its cultural, intellectual, ethical, and social predicaments.
Yet,the rigors of scientific discovery and technological achievement does not provide answers in preventing fanaticism. That requires something else. Yes, anthroplogists, physicists, neuroscientists, and psychologists must question every facet of conventional wisdom - which remains very crucial for the well-being of society. But it takes a philosopher, social critic, and even an activist to stand up for the integrity of others and fight against the depravities, injustice, and oppression which contaminates the moral fabric of all societies. Yet, like scientists, activists provide a defined framework. In essence, what needs to happen now is to pursue activism and science not as separate entities, but as the same vision, What is this vision, perhaps? True progress is achieved if scientific inquiry and technological advancement not only improves the conditions of living in society such as improved life expectancy, the vaccination of diseases, but it ameliorates engrained socio-economic conditions as well and seeks to facilitate creative methods in alleviating deprivation poverty, malnutrition, heightened levels of food scarcity, and even improving the cognitive skills and capacities for children in education. Only the rigors of the scientific method can really determine what remains healthy or even contaminated for the well-being of humans, Not only that, it provides sufficient, out-of the box thinking strategies and solutions to alleviate human well-being. In essence, scientific inquiry is a means, or a tool for an even greater end - which is human flourishing in its cultural, intellectual, ethical, and social predicaments.
A New Humanism, An Ancient Tradition
As renaissance scholars, poets, bankers, philosophers, and artists unveiled the richness of Greco-Roman civilization, it is time for this generation to follow their footsteps and contemplate the totality, richness, and complexity of Ancient Greece in order to pursue an idea of excellence, contribution, and objectivity in a world which values sectarianism, subjectivity, and worst of all, cynicism. It's time for us to look within ourselves and go beyond the constraints of dogmatism, as such constraints lay perpetuated by powerful academic or religious institutions. It is time for us to question the nature of the most basic desires and inclinations. Such desires manifests themselves as the urge for justice, equity, liberty, and truth. Yet such desires codify to undefined, subjective, and pedantic philosophies. It's time to press the pause button and freely question our place in society, as we are in the midst of an era rapt with prosperity, yet simultaneously, a lack of self-realization. We are in a world of disillusionment and illusion. We have to harness our willpower to pursue excellence, not only for ourselves, but for the entirety of society.
But what's our first step? Question things that require no questioning. After that, question things that you fear. Then after that, question things that undermine your integrity - and from that, question the nature of your existence. In essence, assume the rigor, integrity, and stubbornness of Socrates. Question the most basic ideas that are preached in Church or school. Do this continuously under the presumption that your question leads to the truth. But don't overanalyze. Have a clear objective to what you are doing. But learn to delineate the value of an objective and the detriment of bias. Socrates once uttered many times in the Meno and the Apology "The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living" -and surely his words resonate the hearts of many.
But Socrates is just a mere figure in a tapestry of different philosophical styles and philosophical methods. Perhaps you might not know Parmenides, who argued, as like the rishis of Ancient India once proposed, that there is an all encompassing, eternal, unchanging entity that encapsulates all being. How about Heraclitus? Who argued a strange, nonetheless, profound paradox that such an entity embodies the change of life - and rather the universe is a manifestation of this change. These philosophers embody the genius of Greece. But then, perhaps, we might be more practical. Okay, let's listen to Lycurgus. Let's try to be stoics! Stoicism, like Buddhism, argues that humans engage in suffering, and such suffering emerges from the chaos of desire. In order to diminish your suffering, one must control their desires. If one controls their desires, then they control themselves,
In essence, be like the great leaders, scientists, poets, mathematicians, and visionaries of every generation. For all of them learnt a lesson from Greek culture. It was Martin Luther King who alluded to Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato in his speeches, mainly his speech "The Three Evils of Society". It was Nietszche, Freud, and Jung who were fascinated by the Presocratics. It was Dostoevsky who loved reading the tragedies of Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus. And finally, it was Emerson who called Plato "philosophy". It was Einstein, Newton, Fermat, and Pascal who relished the writings of Euclid. All great visionaries of the past have been inspired by Ancient Greece.
So go ahead, try to read a little bit of Plato everyday - and as the years go by, your understanding of Plato will not manifest itself into your understanding of philosophy, but rather you will become wise and aware of your humanity as well as the humanity of others.
But what's our first step? Question things that require no questioning. After that, question things that you fear. Then after that, question things that undermine your integrity - and from that, question the nature of your existence. In essence, assume the rigor, integrity, and stubbornness of Socrates. Question the most basic ideas that are preached in Church or school. Do this continuously under the presumption that your question leads to the truth. But don't overanalyze. Have a clear objective to what you are doing. But learn to delineate the value of an objective and the detriment of bias. Socrates once uttered many times in the Meno and the Apology "The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living" -and surely his words resonate the hearts of many.
But Socrates is just a mere figure in a tapestry of different philosophical styles and philosophical methods. Perhaps you might not know Parmenides, who argued, as like the rishis of Ancient India once proposed, that there is an all encompassing, eternal, unchanging entity that encapsulates all being. How about Heraclitus? Who argued a strange, nonetheless, profound paradox that such an entity embodies the change of life - and rather the universe is a manifestation of this change. These philosophers embody the genius of Greece. But then, perhaps, we might be more practical. Okay, let's listen to Lycurgus. Let's try to be stoics! Stoicism, like Buddhism, argues that humans engage in suffering, and such suffering emerges from the chaos of desire. In order to diminish your suffering, one must control their desires. If one controls their desires, then they control themselves,
In essence, be like the great leaders, scientists, poets, mathematicians, and visionaries of every generation. For all of them learnt a lesson from Greek culture. It was Martin Luther King who alluded to Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato in his speeches, mainly his speech "The Three Evils of Society". It was Nietszche, Freud, and Jung who were fascinated by the Presocratics. It was Dostoevsky who loved reading the tragedies of Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus. And finally, it was Emerson who called Plato "philosophy". It was Einstein, Newton, Fermat, and Pascal who relished the writings of Euclid. All great visionaries of the past have been inspired by Ancient Greece.
So go ahead, try to read a little bit of Plato everyday - and as the years go by, your understanding of Plato will not manifest itself into your understanding of philosophy, but rather you will become wise and aware of your humanity as well as the humanity of others.
Maslow, Amartya Sen, The Rawlsian " Veil of Ignorance", and The Philippines
Unfortunately, the socioeconomic disparities of the Philippines are many. Such variations include massive income and wealth inequalities, poor conditions in public health, and prevailing trends of political corruption. But are such disparities permanent? Would the people have to implement a new system that benefits the working class? I argue yes - but not, it's not what you think. Filipinos can lift these issues through a variety of educational, religious, artistic, cultural, and business-related initiatives. These initiatives can manifest themselves through the improvement of infrastructure, the elimination of political corruption, and the emergence of an intellectual - artistic renaissance. Such efforts, indeed, have been tried before - and many have utterly failed - and I am not guaranteeing that mine will succeed, what I instead offer is a unique, empirical, and at the same time, intuitive hypothesis. This hypothesis can examine the current issues of the Philippines in light of a Rawlsian perspective. But it isn't fast, and it is a slow, gradual process that can bring drastic political change in the future. But, let's not get ahead with my lofty ambitions. Instead, let me explain what the Rawlsian Perspective is, and then show you its shortcomings.
John Rawls, one of the most, if not the most, prominent political philosophers of the twentieth century, coined the term "the veil of ignorance." This term defines a thought experiment in which, before birth, a lottery determines the socioeconomic status of the new infant. Will, this infant be born in a prosperous, well-to-do, upper-middle-class family? Or will it suffer through the horrors of crime and poverty? According to Rawls, such an instance for a child to enter in a prosperous family is rare. So what was Rawls' solution? First, he redefined justice not only as a matter of individual liberties but as a matter of equity and fairness. From that definition, Rawls arrived at a fascination question (or conclusion, perhaps). How can we minimize the likelihood of children being born into poverty? This question remains very pertinent to the Philippines. There is an essential ingredient that Rawls seldom addresses and that his colleague Amartya Sen acutely mentions. Sen asks, "what exactly is poverty?"
Amartya Sen, in his seminal piece "Development as Freedom" states that poverty, especially poverty in the global south, isn't a lack of opportunities or a lack of material comforts. Instead, it is a lack of necessities. This idea of poverty is called deprivation poverty. Furthermore, Amartya Sen states that such conditions remain correlated with a lack of emphasis or even repression of individual constitutional liberties and freedom. Therefore, Sen's thesis says that countries which value civic involvement and the protection of civil rights are less likely to be situated with deprivation poverty. Countries such as France, Japan, the United States, and South Korea are clear examples of Sen's hypothesis. Such countries value a culture of civic protests, democratic elections, and through that, higher political and socioeconomic stability compared to countries in the global south. But then, I would like to say, will the Philippines ever enter into a condition as similar to the global north? I would say yes - it will just take a long time.
An efficient way to deal with complex situations in the Philippines is to address such circumstances in an isolated, case-by-case, region by region matter. Don't try to improve these issues in a matter of months systematically - dedicate yourself a decade or two in doing this - if you are lucky. My approach is simple. The way to analyze complex socioeconomic disparities in the Philippines is to see it in light of Amartya Sen's perspective. And to implement Sen's ideas, you don't have to exclusively appeal to public policy initiatives in welfare economics or developmental economics, but rather applying techniques from psychology.
That's where the Maslow Hierarchy of needs model fits in. This idea has five basic needs, ranging from the most rudimentary to the most valued. Such requirements are 1) Physiological. People need proper food, drinking water, exercise, medicine, and sanitation. 2) Security. Individuals need adequate housing, safety from crime, etc. 3) Love and belonging. People need to have a loving community or at least a society that acknowledges their potential. Furthermore, they need to foster meaningful relationships with their parents. 4) Esteem. Children need to have a strong sense of identity to living happily with others. 5) Self-actualization. Children need to foster their potential to succeed in life. If a child wants to pursue business, arts, and crafts, or even physics, then go ahead; follow what makes life meaningful.
Examining Amartya Sen's hypothesis, I argue that constructing an educational program that addresses the needs of all children leads to improvements in living standards. From this, children will be given the necessary tools and ideas in pursuing what they yearn to pursue. I plan to start individual schools based on such purposes. These schools provide better sanitary conditions for children. This school bases itself on the Finnish Education System, with influences from the classical liberal arts education system. A school that fosters the cognitive and physiological capabilities and necessities of children is more valuable than having a school system that is solely oriented to stimulate career or job growth.
In essence, an educational system that addresses the natural intellectual and artistic, and furthermore practical curiosities of children is crucial, if not necessary for the next generation of Filipinos. Such an educational system can seem to provide a sentiment of fairness and justice for many Filipinos in the future.
John Rawls, one of the most, if not the most, prominent political philosophers of the twentieth century, coined the term "the veil of ignorance." This term defines a thought experiment in which, before birth, a lottery determines the socioeconomic status of the new infant. Will, this infant be born in a prosperous, well-to-do, upper-middle-class family? Or will it suffer through the horrors of crime and poverty? According to Rawls, such an instance for a child to enter in a prosperous family is rare. So what was Rawls' solution? First, he redefined justice not only as a matter of individual liberties but as a matter of equity and fairness. From that definition, Rawls arrived at a fascination question (or conclusion, perhaps). How can we minimize the likelihood of children being born into poverty? This question remains very pertinent to the Philippines. There is an essential ingredient that Rawls seldom addresses and that his colleague Amartya Sen acutely mentions. Sen asks, "what exactly is poverty?"
Amartya Sen, in his seminal piece "Development as Freedom" states that poverty, especially poverty in the global south, isn't a lack of opportunities or a lack of material comforts. Instead, it is a lack of necessities. This idea of poverty is called deprivation poverty. Furthermore, Amartya Sen states that such conditions remain correlated with a lack of emphasis or even repression of individual constitutional liberties and freedom. Therefore, Sen's thesis says that countries which value civic involvement and the protection of civil rights are less likely to be situated with deprivation poverty. Countries such as France, Japan, the United States, and South Korea are clear examples of Sen's hypothesis. Such countries value a culture of civic protests, democratic elections, and through that, higher political and socioeconomic stability compared to countries in the global south. But then, I would like to say, will the Philippines ever enter into a condition as similar to the global north? I would say yes - it will just take a long time.
An efficient way to deal with complex situations in the Philippines is to address such circumstances in an isolated, case-by-case, region by region matter. Don't try to improve these issues in a matter of months systematically - dedicate yourself a decade or two in doing this - if you are lucky. My approach is simple. The way to analyze complex socioeconomic disparities in the Philippines is to see it in light of Amartya Sen's perspective. And to implement Sen's ideas, you don't have to exclusively appeal to public policy initiatives in welfare economics or developmental economics, but rather applying techniques from psychology.
That's where the Maslow Hierarchy of needs model fits in. This idea has five basic needs, ranging from the most rudimentary to the most valued. Such requirements are 1) Physiological. People need proper food, drinking water, exercise, medicine, and sanitation. 2) Security. Individuals need adequate housing, safety from crime, etc. 3) Love and belonging. People need to have a loving community or at least a society that acknowledges their potential. Furthermore, they need to foster meaningful relationships with their parents. 4) Esteem. Children need to have a strong sense of identity to living happily with others. 5) Self-actualization. Children need to foster their potential to succeed in life. If a child wants to pursue business, arts, and crafts, or even physics, then go ahead; follow what makes life meaningful.
Examining Amartya Sen's hypothesis, I argue that constructing an educational program that addresses the needs of all children leads to improvements in living standards. From this, children will be given the necessary tools and ideas in pursuing what they yearn to pursue. I plan to start individual schools based on such purposes. These schools provide better sanitary conditions for children. This school bases itself on the Finnish Education System, with influences from the classical liberal arts education system. A school that fosters the cognitive and physiological capabilities and necessities of children is more valuable than having a school system that is solely oriented to stimulate career or job growth.
In essence, an educational system that addresses the natural intellectual and artistic, and furthermore practical curiosities of children is crucial, if not necessary for the next generation of Filipinos. Such an educational system can seem to provide a sentiment of fairness and justice for many Filipinos in the future.
Haidt's Controversial (But Fascinating) Hypothesis on Morality
In November 2012, a group of researchers from the University of Virginia, New York University, and UC Irvine published a monumental paper called “Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Theory of Moral Pluralism,” which argues that human societies, whether agrarian, monadic, or sedentary, have devised moral systems with a similar set of foundational values. These values are coupled into harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, authority/respect, purity/sanctity. Each culture has varying degrees of these morals. This paper is also a critique of pluralism, nativism, and intuitionism. This paper provides a clear, coherent, and pragmatic approach in explaining human behavior. From this, researchers devise a theory which attempts to define moral behavior.
Haidt weaves in “nativist, cultural-developmentalist, intuitionist, and pluralistic perspectives.” The literature review composes of research from evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, and social psychology journals. This paper refutes "moral monism," which argues that only one inherent system explains human moral behavior. For example, Bentham’s utilitarian idea , which states, “what is good is pleasurable, and what is bad, harmful,” exemplifies this strange idea. This idea attempts to delineate the complexities of human behavior into one, single idea. Haidt disagrees with this theory. He argues that human moral behavior requires different sets of values, rather than, one, distinguishable ideal. From this, they provide critiques of nativism, as well. This theory argues that moral behavior is innate, not learned. From this, Haidt implements an evolutionary perspective in this paper.
In essence, Haidt pursues an ambitious, but incomplete task. Although adopting an evolutionary perspective, which, in all cases, is valid, justified, and falsifiable, he should explain circumstances and situations where these values are broken. For example, he should address sadism, and explain how it evolves with these values. For example, how does the desire to commit genocide, or mass atrocities, concern the loyalty/betrayal foundation, or the authority/subversion foundation? How do these primitive, if not, inhumane urges develop through time?
Moreover, Haidt should address developmental factors which shape moral behavior. Which environmental cues, triggers, and circumstances create individuals with different moral foundations? Furthermore, how do these cues impact a person? What is the role of self-acceptance, and self-regard? How does self-actualization concern moral foundations? In essence, Haidt should discuss how moral foundations shape individual growth, and how individuals flourish differently through these values.
In essence, Haidt provides insightful research. However, I believe it should be expanded. It should provide a comprehensive assessment of certain objections. They should consider how humans have devised religious systems to consolidate their values. That will require a lot more research. Nevertheless, Haidt’s multifaceted approach in examining moral behavior is crucial for anyone who is interested in trying to examine the complex social behaviors of human societies.
Haidt weaves in “nativist, cultural-developmentalist, intuitionist, and pluralistic perspectives.” The literature review composes of research from evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, and social psychology journals. This paper refutes "moral monism," which argues that only one inherent system explains human moral behavior. For example, Bentham’s utilitarian idea , which states, “what is good is pleasurable, and what is bad, harmful,” exemplifies this strange idea. This idea attempts to delineate the complexities of human behavior into one, single idea. Haidt disagrees with this theory. He argues that human moral behavior requires different sets of values, rather than, one, distinguishable ideal. From this, they provide critiques of nativism, as well. This theory argues that moral behavior is innate, not learned. From this, Haidt implements an evolutionary perspective in this paper.
In essence, Haidt pursues an ambitious, but incomplete task. Although adopting an evolutionary perspective, which, in all cases, is valid, justified, and falsifiable, he should explain circumstances and situations where these values are broken. For example, he should address sadism, and explain how it evolves with these values. For example, how does the desire to commit genocide, or mass atrocities, concern the loyalty/betrayal foundation, or the authority/subversion foundation? How do these primitive, if not, inhumane urges develop through time?
Moreover, Haidt should address developmental factors which shape moral behavior. Which environmental cues, triggers, and circumstances create individuals with different moral foundations? Furthermore, how do these cues impact a person? What is the role of self-acceptance, and self-regard? How does self-actualization concern moral foundations? In essence, Haidt should discuss how moral foundations shape individual growth, and how individuals flourish differently through these values.
In essence, Haidt provides insightful research. However, I believe it should be expanded. It should provide a comprehensive assessment of certain objections. They should consider how humans have devised religious systems to consolidate their values. That will require a lot more research. Nevertheless, Haidt’s multifaceted approach in examining moral behavior is crucial for anyone who is interested in trying to examine the complex social behaviors of human societies.
My Benedictine Conversations
Abbot Shea is a profound man. He is immersed in wisdom and understanding. I recall meeting him at the monastery. There, hungry for his sagacity, I asked him a difficult question. It was “If God exists, then why is there so much evil?” He responds “Ian, you are hungry for answers. You must live with the questions.” Upon hearing this, I was shocked. Was he espousing atheism? An atheist is surely one who blathers through questions. I responded “What questions do we have to live with?” He pauses and with a rasp, he says “Don’t take it literally. It’s the desire to understand. You must embrace that. Everyone goes through it.” This encounter made me to espouse the importance of philosophical questions. Therefore, I state it is crucial to inquire the questions of life, rather than avoiding them.
This encounter reminds me of Socrates’ aphorism “the unexamined life is not worth living.” For him, introspection leads to a life of excellence. For me, it is the path to fullness. What do I mean? Deep philosophical questions alleviates the pains of the soul and nourishes happiness. I argue that the questions of existence, God, and truth occur in every stage of life. Everybody will face catastrophe; and only in the face of tragedy, these questions shock us emotionally. However, suffering gives us the power to withstand adversity. If one doesn’t suffer, it’s inconceivable to live without philosophical questions. Everyone would cry “Why will I die? What is death?” Others would lament “Is God true?” If one introspects deeply, then they will receive valuable answers. Self-inquiry alleviates the scars of life. It uncovers a raw source of happiness, which is our soul. In essence, self-inquiry leads to inner peace.
However, it may flow into nihilism. Many have descended into this trap. Camus did, and most certainly the Cynics. But not all. The desire to contemplate isn’t a form of resentment or a mark of insanity. Rather, it’s a natural inclination towards who we are as human beings. As a result , we receive the richness of life. Without it, then life will be desolate or deterministic. To ban nihilism, you must accept this as self evident. Life pushes us to face deep, existential questions. If we answer with faith and dignity, we immerse into the infinite grace of a higher good. So do not rely on conclusions from others. Arrive at your own conclusions. That is the richness of life.
What The Stanford Prison Experiment Says About Humans
The Stanford Prison Experiment, a film by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, retells a tragic moment. As the film begins, we observe a professor, Dr. Phillip Zombardo, who plans to conduct an ambitious study. In this project, he examines the psychological impact of prison abuse. He examines whether if the strained relationship between guards and prisoners are the underlying reasons for abuse. He recruits twenty-four students. After that, he randomly selects them as guards and prisoners, under the condition that no harm is done. Six days later, chaos ensues. Students, assuming the role of correctional officers, begin to act abusive. To the point, that Prisoner 8612, Daniel Culp, dissolved into a sporadic mental breakdown. It was disturbing
. Disturbing in the sense that such a film conveyed the spontaneity of a normal person to engage in psychotic, if not, sadistic actions . As the film concludes, Dr. Zombardo ends his research study. In essence, this film has taught me a profound lesson. Everyone can do cruel, gruesome, and wicked deeds.
The climax of this film is when one of the guards (Keir Gilchrist) has brutally clubbed Johnny Simmons, playing as Prisoner 416. Because of this event, his volunteers further abused their role as guards. Alvarez’s use of slow motion signifies tension as his volunteers transition from sanity and innocence to madness and debauchery. In this scene, there have been two instances of ethics violations. First, Dr. Zimbardo allowed the use of extreme violence, which violates Section 3.04 of the American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics. It states that psychologists must avoid unreasonable harm towards their research participants, therefore forbidding torture. This instance also goes against Principle A of the General Principles Section which clearly states that psychologists must protect the rights of their patients. As we clearly observe, Dr. Zimbardo was negligent. He had the right to end his research study, because his volunteers clearly abused their privileges, but chose not to.
This film reminds me of the Jungian Shadow. According to Carl Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist, a shadow embodies our darkest selves - an archetype that resembles our desire for malevolence. This trait manifests in serial killers such as Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer. World leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin embody this persona. When the students were assigned roles as guards, their position began to consume them psychologically. Why? Because a prison guard, in essence, is portrayed as violent, authoritarian, and abusive. If one assumes a violent persona, then, as this film clearly demonstrates, one becomes a violent person.
After watching this film, I began to espouse the importance of a review board . Yes, a panel might be an annoyance. At first, they might not grasp the point of your research study. Others, who have not acquired the basic concepts of psychology, may denounce it. Nonetheless, they serve a greater good. A review board prevents future abuses like the Stanford Prison Experiment from happening. After this notorious event, there have been numerous reforms in the APA. The APA reintroduced strict regulations, through meticulously revising their Code of Ethics. As a result, many researchers have been keen on these regulations.
In essence, the Stanford Prison Experiment taught me about fragility of human nature. If allowed, one could freely abuse others. This truth is cynical and dreary, but also realistic. There have been many instances before. Take, for instance, the 2012 Aurora Shooting. The perpetrator of this massacre, James Holmes, despite being a psychopath, became obsessed with the persona of the Joker, Batman’s arch nemesis. This led him to fill his apartment with explosives. Another instance is the Holocaust. Prison guards were notorious for raping, shooting, and gassing Jews without mercy. Some of these prison guards are teenagers, even younger than Dr. Zimbardo's volunteers. To conclude, Kyle Patrick Alvarez is a great director. Through his surreal, disturbing, and gothic portrayal of the Stanford Prison Experiment, I began to realize how dark humans really are.
The Impact of Victor Frankl
Around January 2015, I uncovered an old cover of Man’s Search for Meaning. It was in the shelves of my high school library. First, I didn’t care. However, when I was in gym class, my coach mentioned Frankl. He taught a course on psychoanalytic literature. Two months later, my theology teacher assigned an excerpt from Man’s Search for Meaning. Well, since I didn’t have the time to read a two-hundred page book, I read the ten-page excerpt for my class. It was delightful. It altered my fixed mindset. At first, I saw myself as a disgrace. I feared that I attained a learning disability. I was obese as well. These factors were impossible to overcome. But with a will of iron, I excelled. I faced my flaws. I didn’t cower to circumstance. Through introspection, I alleviate my fears and insecurities. Viktor Frankl’s life story gave me hope. Despite his experience in Auschwitz, he remained optimistic for the human race. It was resonating.
What are the main insights of Man’s Search for Meaning? Frankl introduces Logotherapy. It is a meaning centered approach (2). It values the individual’s search for identity. Logotherapy centers under this basic premise: “Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.” All situations, even desperate, propel us to pursue a noble cause. In short, great tragedies produce greater human beings. Let me provide a clear example. My grand-aunt witnessed the German wehrmacht occupy her hometown. A day later, the gestapo arrested her teacher. Three years later, her childhood friend was killed in an air raid. Despite these memories, she persisted. For me, that’s the essence of Frankl’s approach. Everyone could endure horror.
Logotherapy has many effective techniques. My favorite ones are paradoxical intervention and dereflection. To begin, paradoxical intervention is when a therapist encourages a patient to face their fears. For example, if a patient fears failure, the therapist asks him/her to do a daunting task. If a patient has arachnophobia, then the therapist places him/her in a room of spiders. Dereflection, on the other hand, deals with self-driven individuals. It shifts the patient’s attention from self to others. Many clinicians find logotherapy effective. In 2013, APA researchers implemented logotherapy techniques in a CBT practice (3). The results were positive. To be sincere, Viktor Frankl’s philosophy encouraged me to pursue a life of courage.
The Universal Wisdom of Buddha, Confucius, and Aristotle
|
In the west, the belief “virtue is a mean between two extremes” ascribes to Aristotle. In this case, the extremes are either an excess or a deficiency. For example, if one aspires to be brave, an absence of bravery amounts to cowardice. Whereas, an excess of bravery leads to assertiveness, or what Aristotle says, is brash. From my experience, I believe that this idea extends to all developed civilizations. There are two teachers, of fundamentally different backgrounds, that arose with the Golden Mean. That was Buddha and Confucius.
The Doctrine of the Mean or Zhongyong, is fundamental to Confucian thought. According to Huston Smith, its core premise is “nothing in excess” (1). In short, it charts a middle course between two unworkable extremes. The Buddhist Middle Way or Noble Eightfold Path devises a similar argument, stating that it is the moderation between two extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. Confucius, Buddha, and Aristotle knew that virtue does not arise from compulsion or rigid dogma, instead it arises from moderation and awareness. By awareness, a person chooses to be virtuous by “treating people the way they want to be treated.” Buddha, Confucius, and Aristotle arose from fundamentally different cultures. India had a socio-religious caste system, Athens had a polis and democracy, and China had a mandate of heaven. Nevertheless, when effaced with the question of virtue, all three of these cultures arose to the same premises: “Virtue is a mean between two extremes” and “do unto others the way you do unto yourself.” Although Ancient China, India, and Greece held archaic ways of thinking, they nevertheless bore great thinkers, whose ideals are influential a millennia after their death. Even more interesting is that their ideals are practical and are not exclusive for a particular group. These are for the common person, which is all of us |
Embracing Nihilism Through Nonviolence
Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the most prominent theologians of the 20th century, published a monumental piece, called “The Moral Man, and the Immoral Society.” In this work, Niebuhr addresses the nature of injustice, individualism, and moreover, the depravity of human nature. He states that social change transforms through the intricacies of reason and a sense of the transcendent. Mixing religious imagery with social commentary, Niebuhr elicits a profound point: “Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” However, he denounces the precepts of nonviolence, stating that it is too ideal for a sinful society. From that, he is cynical, espousing the expediency of political mobilisation, in order to alleviate the plight of the disadvantaged. Although Niebuhr has died around fifty years ago, his mindset persists. Americans are becoming disillusioned from the injustices of society, and the only way to alleviate this horror is intense social upheaval.
Let me quote Gandhi, as he states “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” From this, I say that this idea rouses a sense of hope. And I agree, there have been periods in history when progress has been made. Take for instance, the presidency of Nelson Mandela, which, with the assistance of Declerk, ended the political oppression of Apartheid in South Africa. Moreover, the presidency of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, during the early 2000s, ending a tumultuous period of military dictatorship. These are all bouts of optimism, instilling a sense of hope to the human race. However, reality seems to steer towards disillusionment. As the future progresses, there are strands of racism, economic injustice, moreover ethnic turmoil in South Africa.
However, we can’t say that America is falling apart. You cannot accept the inevitable woes of the present. You must harness the force of compassion. Not just through activism, but through living life itself. Surrender to an ideal. Do not use it for political expediency. That builds integrity. Live a life dedicated to the pursuit of peace, and benefits will reap. Remember, the avarice of tyrants is transient. Power fades. But virtue, moresoever, goodness never dies away. The will, the desire for a common humanity, springs from the depths of the soul. And from this, nonviolence is never a matter of public policy, but a way of stirring an emotion which lies beneath us.
Let me quote Gandhi, as he states “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” From this, I say that this idea rouses a sense of hope. And I agree, there have been periods in history when progress has been made. Take for instance, the presidency of Nelson Mandela, which, with the assistance of Declerk, ended the political oppression of Apartheid in South Africa. Moreover, the presidency of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, during the early 2000s, ending a tumultuous period of military dictatorship. These are all bouts of optimism, instilling a sense of hope to the human race. However, reality seems to steer towards disillusionment. As the future progresses, there are strands of racism, economic injustice, moreover ethnic turmoil in South Africa.
However, we can’t say that America is falling apart. You cannot accept the inevitable woes of the present. You must harness the force of compassion. Not just through activism, but through living life itself. Surrender to an ideal. Do not use it for political expediency. That builds integrity. Live a life dedicated to the pursuit of peace, and benefits will reap. Remember, the avarice of tyrants is transient. Power fades. But virtue, moresoever, goodness never dies away. The will, the desire for a common humanity, springs from the depths of the soul. And from this, nonviolence is never a matter of public policy, but a way of stirring an emotion which lies beneath us.
The Better Angels of Our Nature?
Stephen Pinker poses a strong hypothesis in the “Better Angels of Our Nature” and “Enlightenment Now”, but is this hypothesis strong enough? Pinker’s justifiable assertion that humans are less violent than before bases itself on a strange heuristic. It is not that humans are becoming less violent, as if it lays engrained in our evolutionary fabric, but because of the Enlightenment, we mature ourselves. It is, as if Kant says, ‘that humans emerge from their self-imposed immaturity”. I would like to then posit this point to Pinker: what value would your conclusions bring in dealing with the complex technological and geopolitical issues inherent in the present? The ascent of fringe nationalistic movements throughout western Europe remains one instance. How about the threat of radical Wahabbi terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan? How about Climate Change? How about the outbreak of Ebola, Zika, AIDS, and other autoimmune disorders in countries of the global south? How about a potential, if not economically catastrophic war with Iran? How about the ascent of radical left-right ideologies in the Western World? These, of course, are issues that need solving. But surely they weren’t worse than past situations. Or were they? The dilemmas I have mentioned are complex issues that require a combination of pragmatism, calculatedness, and patience from our most skilled public servants. Issues like these manifested themselves in similar patterns from the past. Instances such as the McCarthy Era of the 1950s, the Vietnam War, the Great Depression, the Great Recession and even the Iran Contra Scandal, have left a bitter aftertaste in the present. It appears to be insufficient to act optimistic at this time. For beneath this optimism lays a primal, unconscious, and mitotic chaos which will catch the us off guard. Either/or a war and an economic crash will lead to this. Or perhaps not. In essence, we don’t know what the future brings us. But we shouldn’t be optimistic about this. Neither pessimistic. We should expect anything to happen. Just be strong and accept the inevitability of change,
We need to foster not only a new generation of leaders, but a new generation of pragmatists and idealists - people who will deliver a profound idea and stir the hearts of the human race. For the issues of the present are gradually escalating. People who value a culture of integrity, rather than a philosophy of anger and avarice, are the only people we look up to - if there are any left. People who have unwavering faith in the human spirit are preferable to those who have an irrevocable resentment for the powerful, even if the powerful have exploited millions. It is time to produce a generation that isn't optimistic and opportunistic but strong-willed, assertive, yet sympathetic. As the great recession of the 2000s have made many people disillusioned about the present, let us carry the pessimism of the past and transform the platitude, opportunism, and nihilism which reeks our present geopolitical environment, into a philosophy which gives us not only vigilance, direction, and determination, but compassion and love for the mystery of the human condition. This is a hard road to pursue. But, as I say, as we create our own demons, we emerge as the better angels of our nature. This idea is the truest idea of what it means to be better. It is to overcome adversity through the acuity of reason, the intensity of love, and the steadfastness of an ideal. Now is the time to transform ourselves into the Greatest Generation. I am not writing this article to provide new initiatives for change, but rather I emphasize the necessity of change.
We need to foster not only a new generation of leaders, but a new generation of pragmatists and idealists - people who will deliver a profound idea and stir the hearts of the human race. For the issues of the present are gradually escalating. People who value a culture of integrity, rather than a philosophy of anger and avarice, are the only people we look up to - if there are any left. People who have unwavering faith in the human spirit are preferable to those who have an irrevocable resentment for the powerful, even if the powerful have exploited millions. It is time to produce a generation that isn't optimistic and opportunistic but strong-willed, assertive, yet sympathetic. As the great recession of the 2000s have made many people disillusioned about the present, let us carry the pessimism of the past and transform the platitude, opportunism, and nihilism which reeks our present geopolitical environment, into a philosophy which gives us not only vigilance, direction, and determination, but compassion and love for the mystery of the human condition. This is a hard road to pursue. But, as I say, as we create our own demons, we emerge as the better angels of our nature. This idea is the truest idea of what it means to be better. It is to overcome adversity through the acuity of reason, the intensity of love, and the steadfastness of an ideal. Now is the time to transform ourselves into the Greatest Generation. I am not writing this article to provide new initiatives for change, but rather I emphasize the necessity of change.
Encompassing Your Purpose
A wise man once said "Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life - think of it, dream of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea alone. This is the way to success." Contemplate that. What does this actually mean? Is he really encouraging us to be delusional? I mean I am 5'4" and if I visualize myself as Michael Jordan, that doesn't make me Michael Jordan.This philosopher means one should surrender to a powerful idea. It embodies who you are as a person, and who you will become if you, yourself, persevere through rejection, grief, and failure. Dedicate yourself to your truth. From that, you must surrender to a message, idea, and vision that both fulfills who you are and transcends the suffering that arises from life.
I'd like to conclude this talk with a quote from the German philosopher, Nietszche, who said "He who has a why, must bear any how."
I'd like to conclude this talk with a quote from the German philosopher, Nietszche, who said "He who has a why, must bear any how."
HOW YOUR BRAIN MAKES YOU BECOME A BETTER PERSON: AN EXAMINATION OF RESEARCH
"You are what you think. All that you are arises from your thoughts. With your thoughts, you make your world." - Dhammapada
|
|
Many researchers argue that personality traits are genetically determined, while many others state that personality changes through decision making. However, it is more complicated than that. The central premise of this piece indicates that personality, along with its genetic predispositions, changes through time if an individual chooses to 1) optimize their environment, 2) assess their values, and 3) surrender to an all-encompassing purpose. Let us begin with this premise: The intricate structures of the brain lead individuals to produce unique behaviors and habits, gradually contributing to unique personalities, cementing itself into unique life perspectives, in turn, providing an individual's self-esteem. However, the brain can change itself through the adaptation of multifaceted habits and behaviors that are beneficial for an individual's physical health, self-awareness, and cognitive capabilities; therefore, optimizing their self-esteem. All that needs to happen is to do a difficult task, but a meaningful one every day. Such examples are running a mile in ten minutes, reading five newspaper articles on economics, or meditating for an hour. Depending on an individual's goals and mindset, a person that can make small-term difficult accomplishments produce long term impacts. People that optimize themselves physiologically, intellectually, and, in the most practical sense, morally, are set to flourish in life.
However, without going too ahead, let us first analyze the strange relationship between the brain, personality, and genes. All of these factors play a role in cultivating self-esteem, the key to flourishing. To begin, let's define character as an intricate collection of habits. Such habits emerge from genetic and environmental factors. Personality regards three components, 1) unique traits and habits, 2) habits acquired by a person's social setting, and 3) patterns of adapting towards the environment. The first component, and the only one I will fixate on, bases itself on evolutionary biology. A person's unique traits, whether if it is their facial expression, body type, and emotional intelligence, derive from genetic components. Studies in developmental psychology have demonstrated that personality traits are moderately heritable, and can predict various lifetime outcomes, including psychopathology. Furthermore, organizations such as the Research Domain Criteria have labeled that neurotic personality traits contain genetic components, eliciting "heritable variation in personality traits, such as neuroticism, would share a common genetic basis with psychiatric diseases, such as major depressive disorder" [1]. Even if research suggests that genetics does not play the end-all-be-all role in personality, it still represents a substantial role in determining a person's capacity to exhibit moral behavior. For instance, developmental psychologist Nancy Eisenberg clearly states, "It is likely that aspects of children's temperament that are heritable (e.g., their tendencies to experience emotions such as sadness and anger and their ability to regulate their emotions and related behavior) provide an avenue through which genetics affect children's moral behavior. Besides, children's temperaments affect how their parents interact with an attempt to socialize them. Thus, it is likely that children's genetic inheritances affect their moral development in multiple ways" [2].
Genetics appears to play a significant role in the growth and development of the moral decision making of infants, but not the most substantial. Every person can determine desirable or aversive personality traits. Now, you might be wondering why I have just emphasized a genetic approach. This indeed is a valid claim -- but it leads to a trap. Genetics play a substantial role in determining the shape and size of the brain, thus determining the shape and size of our cortical areas and the connectivity of our neurons.
This observation leads to the ultimate question: Can we change our brain even if genetics play a significant role? The answer is a definite yes. Though genetic factors could limit individual capabilities, we can still maximize these capabilities to pursue extraordinary, if not seemingly genius breakthroughs. It all has to do with cultivating a positive mindset and a will of iron. If an individual thinks based on acknowledging their potential, embracing their limitations, and embracing their ambitions, they can define who they are and most importantly, whom they want to become in life. To reap the fruits of their potential, they should take care of their mental health and change their surroundings to ensure some degree of neural plasticity. All of these factors considered, then an individual is bound to flourish in life.
However, without going too ahead, let us first analyze the strange relationship between the brain, personality, and genes. All of these factors play a role in cultivating self-esteem, the key to flourishing. To begin, let's define character as an intricate collection of habits. Such habits emerge from genetic and environmental factors. Personality regards three components, 1) unique traits and habits, 2) habits acquired by a person's social setting, and 3) patterns of adapting towards the environment. The first component, and the only one I will fixate on, bases itself on evolutionary biology. A person's unique traits, whether if it is their facial expression, body type, and emotional intelligence, derive from genetic components. Studies in developmental psychology have demonstrated that personality traits are moderately heritable, and can predict various lifetime outcomes, including psychopathology. Furthermore, organizations such as the Research Domain Criteria have labeled that neurotic personality traits contain genetic components, eliciting "heritable variation in personality traits, such as neuroticism, would share a common genetic basis with psychiatric diseases, such as major depressive disorder" [1]. Even if research suggests that genetics does not play the end-all-be-all role in personality, it still represents a substantial role in determining a person's capacity to exhibit moral behavior. For instance, developmental psychologist Nancy Eisenberg clearly states, "It is likely that aspects of children's temperament that are heritable (e.g., their tendencies to experience emotions such as sadness and anger and their ability to regulate their emotions and related behavior) provide an avenue through which genetics affect children's moral behavior. Besides, children's temperaments affect how their parents interact with an attempt to socialize them. Thus, it is likely that children's genetic inheritances affect their moral development in multiple ways" [2].
Genetics appears to play a significant role in the growth and development of the moral decision making of infants, but not the most substantial. Every person can determine desirable or aversive personality traits. Now, you might be wondering why I have just emphasized a genetic approach. This indeed is a valid claim -- but it leads to a trap. Genetics play a substantial role in determining the shape and size of the brain, thus determining the shape and size of our cortical areas and the connectivity of our neurons.
This observation leads to the ultimate question: Can we change our brain even if genetics play a significant role? The answer is a definite yes. Though genetic factors could limit individual capabilities, we can still maximize these capabilities to pursue extraordinary, if not seemingly genius breakthroughs. It all has to do with cultivating a positive mindset and a will of iron. If an individual thinks based on acknowledging their potential, embracing their limitations, and embracing their ambitions, they can define who they are and most importantly, whom they want to become in life. To reap the fruits of their potential, they should take care of their mental health and change their surroundings to ensure some degree of neural plasticity. All of these factors considered, then an individual is bound to flourish in life.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] The genetics of human personality. Genes, Brain and Behavior. 2018; 17:e12439. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12439
[2] Eisenberg N. (2004) Prosocial and Moral Development in the Family. In: Thorkildsen T.A., Walberg H.J. (eds) Nurturing Morality. Issues in Children’s and Families’ Lives, vol 5. Springer, Boston, MA
[3] Sharma, N., Classen, J., & Cohen, L. G. (2013). Neural plasticity and its contribution to functional recovery. Handbook of clinical neurology, 110, 3–12. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-52901-5.00001-0
Implementing Positive Psychology Tricks to Strengthen Leadership Skills
What is success? Tony Robbins defines this as " doing what you want, when you want, where you want, with whom you want, as much as you want.” Jordan Peterson adds depth to this idea, further eliciting" “Strengthen the individual. Start with yourself. Take care of yourself. Define who you are. Refine your personality. Choose your destination.”
These two notions regard success as the fulfillment of potential. A person who hungers for success must achieve goals, acquire different habits, and refine various facets of their cognition and personality.
However, success isn't necessarily that. It bases itself not only on individual needs, but societal needs as well. Therefore, success is also a matter of impact.
The most successful individuals are those who strive to be the most impactful in society.
But how do you do that? Here's a two step process:
1) Refine your motives. As many etch in their journals "how will I be a successful student?," "how will I be a better leader?," or "how should I live?," you should also say "how should I use my talents to improve the 1) well-being of myself, 2) my family, 3) my community, and most importantly, 4) the world?" You have to be both concrete and ambitious. Remember, this is the most cumbersome step of this list. It requires a significant amount of time and contemplation. Therefore, if you are comfortable with your motives, and if these motives are selfless, then what you should do is write
"I strive to _____________in order that________________ so that society will___________________"
2) Refine your character traits. Practice transcendental meditation to facilitate patience. Always ask interesting questions to make others speak. Listen to others. Get into a morning routine. All of these habits lead to better character traits. However, the best way to refine your personality isn't only through multifaceted habits but through a combination of 1) gratitude, 2) responsibility, and 3) self-awareness. Gratitude increases positive thinking, which leads to a positive attitude. Responsibility increases trust, which leads to integrity. Self-awareness increases bravery, which leads to fearlessness. But how do you easily master these skills? I'll give you a list of three exercises to practice:
a) Gratitude - Write ten good traits that you have. If you want to be more grateful, write ten reasons why you wrote them. If you want to be even more grateful, then do random acts of kindness to those who love you.
b) Responsibility - If you enjoy your job, work more than expected and do it with diligence. If you are given nauseating assignments, then finish them with laser sharp speed. Remember, responsibility is the practice of detachment. An individual is fulfilling their duty, rather than listening to their own body. To detach yourself from the cravings of your body signifies personal mastery. Here are the exercises to practice responsiblity
1) Write to yourself
I am committed to doing (task) at this (time) so that I will improve my (character trait)
2) Schedule your day with concrete tasks. Use google calendar.
3) Whenever you are lazy or feeling unconfident of pursuing your goals, just visualize yourself doing it.