Reading Response for Mindfulness and Meaningful Work by Claude Whitmyer
Whitmyer's analysis of the Buddhist "work ethic" was very enlightening and eye-opening. I was excited to read something from another perspective than Christianity.
"The more responsibility I was given, the more fulfilling the work became." This quote by Whitmyer struck me the moment I read it and stayed in the back of my mind as I continued to read. As I read through Thich Nhat Hanh's "story" about the interdependence that goes into a sheet of paper, I was intrigued by the connections he made, and the seriousness with which he took the smallest thing. However, I was unsure how this story about a sheet of paper could be related to finding satisfaction through responsibility in work.
Then I realized that the overarching themes between these two things were mindfulness and personal investment. If one considers the countless factors and conditions necessary for production of something as seemingly insignificant as a sheet of paper and realizes the interdependence of everything in the universe, then he can begin to see himself as a key component in the grand scheme of things. Not as Adam Smith's meaningless "cog in the wheel," but as a part of the whole web of interdependence, the products of which would be lost if one piece were out of place. With this in mind, how can one envision himself, or others, as useless or meaningless? Then, if one felt as though he were truly a valuable piece of the greater whole, he would naturally feel more satisfied with his work if he were given responsibility - the opportunity to decide for himself just what his piece of the whole would be.
Perhaps if employers and managers believed that everything and everyone was interdependent, and no one could survive with out others, then they would be more mindful of their employees and take the time to make sure that they are being given opportunities for responsibility. When one is mindful of his role in the whole and is willing to invest time and energy into his role, then he would not cease to be satisfied in his work. As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." We should all look for meaning in our work, rather than hoping it will be handed to us on a silver platter.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Problems with the Pope
Reading Response for: Work as Co-Creation: A Critique of a Remarkably Bad Idea by Stanley Hauerwas
Hauerwas brings up a legitimate criticism to the Pope's encyclical when he says that "concrete implications remain unclear or uncertain...it simply errs, or supports or condemns positions no one holds." In short, the Pope has lost touch with the real, everyday person's, world. I agree with Hauerwas. He in fact said many of the things I was thinking while reading the encyclical. John Paul II seems to "lack the courage to take a position on anything," and "works much like the preachers who write their sermons and then look for texts to support them."
Hauerwas warns that perhaps the Pope is trying to assign dignity to common work in order to keep the lower classes satisfied and soothe the consciences of the wealthy - "Perhaps then, the best definition of work is 'that from which the rich are exempt.' The rich thus must attribute meaning to work in an effort to morally legitimate their own parasitical status."
However, ultimately, we shouldn't have to find meaning or fulfillment based on some abstract "dignity of common work," but rather knowing simply that our work "helps sustain the lives of other people."
Hauerwas brings up a legitimate criticism to the Pope's encyclical when he says that "concrete implications remain unclear or uncertain...it simply errs, or supports or condemns positions no one holds." In short, the Pope has lost touch with the real, everyday person's, world. I agree with Hauerwas. He in fact said many of the things I was thinking while reading the encyclical. John Paul II seems to "lack the courage to take a position on anything," and "works much like the preachers who write their sermons and then look for texts to support them."
Hauerwas warns that perhaps the Pope is trying to assign dignity to common work in order to keep the lower classes satisfied and soothe the consciences of the wealthy - "Perhaps then, the best definition of work is 'that from which the rich are exempt.' The rich thus must attribute meaning to work in an effort to morally legitimate their own parasitical status."
However, ultimately, we shouldn't have to find meaning or fulfillment based on some abstract "dignity of common work," but rather knowing simply that our work "helps sustain the lives of other people."
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Pope and Socialism
Reading Response: Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor by Pope Leo XIII
Pope Leo, in 1891, felt that the rising popularity of Socialist theory wouldn't be beneficial to either the upper class or the lower class, for the simple fact that in both cases, the state claims the property legally (and somewhat morally) owned by individuals. He takes a very Locke-ian view when he says that "...every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."
I think, though, that he has a very idyllic view of human nature. He states that if a man has enough money to live on, that he'll save the rest of it and be thrifty with what he has. "Nature itself would urge him to do this." If this is so, then why is our society so riddled with debts we can never pay off? It could be that only those who make less money than they can live on would be the only ones in debt, but we know this isn't true.
Perhaps if our society were like Pope Leo's ideal world, people would be more wise with their money and more considerate of their neighbors. But our world is not like he imagined, and it has many problems. Rather than having some people maing up solutions based on pipe dreams, we need real people living in this real world coming up with real solutions to the problems we face everyday.
Pope Leo, in 1891, felt that the rising popularity of Socialist theory wouldn't be beneficial to either the upper class or the lower class, for the simple fact that in both cases, the state claims the property legally (and somewhat morally) owned by individuals. He takes a very Locke-ian view when he says that "...every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."
I think, though, that he has a very idyllic view of human nature. He states that if a man has enough money to live on, that he'll save the rest of it and be thrifty with what he has. "Nature itself would urge him to do this." If this is so, then why is our society so riddled with debts we can never pay off? It could be that only those who make less money than they can live on would be the only ones in debt, but we know this isn't true.
Perhaps if our society were like Pope Leo's ideal world, people would be more wise with their money and more considerate of their neighbors. But our world is not like he imagined, and it has many problems. Rather than having some people maing up solutions based on pipe dreams, we need real people living in this real world coming up with real solutions to the problems we face everyday.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Reading Response: Wal-Mart Effect (Chapters 7 and 9)
Upon reading this book, I know two things for sure; 1) that the executives of Wal-Mart, whether ethical or not, are brilliant business tycoons and 2) that Wal-Mart is not merely a place to buy groceries.
Wal-Mart not only keeps its promise to have "always low prices" by finding the lowest prices, but by actually lowering prices itself. Wal-Mart coerces its suppliers into lowering their prices, searches the globe for the lowest prices, strips all amenities from their corporation in order to lower prices, and never ever gives up in its mission for the lowest prices. With determination and prowess as they have, it's no surprise that Wal-Mart does, indeed, have the lowest prices around.
Because Wal-Mart offers the lowest prices, they have an automatic consumer following. People will shop where they can get the biggest "bang for their buck" and Wal-Mart knows it. Customers could refuse to shop at Wal-Mart if they wanted to, but many are drawn back again and again because of the Wal-Mart mantra - "Always low prices, always."
People, though they may complain about Wal-Mart's policies, still continually support the corporation with their dollars. As Fishman says, "Wal-Mart is not just a store, or a company, or a powerful institution. It is also a mirror. Wal-Mart is quintessentially American. It mirrors our own energy, our sense of destiny, our appetite for bigness and variety and innovation."
Upon reading this book, I know two things for sure; 1) that the executives of Wal-Mart, whether ethical or not, are brilliant business tycoons and 2) that Wal-Mart is not merely a place to buy groceries.
Wal-Mart not only keeps its promise to have "always low prices" by finding the lowest prices, but by actually lowering prices itself. Wal-Mart coerces its suppliers into lowering their prices, searches the globe for the lowest prices, strips all amenities from their corporation in order to lower prices, and never ever gives up in its mission for the lowest prices. With determination and prowess as they have, it's no surprise that Wal-Mart does, indeed, have the lowest prices around.
Because Wal-Mart offers the lowest prices, they have an automatic consumer following. People will shop where they can get the biggest "bang for their buck" and Wal-Mart knows it. Customers could refuse to shop at Wal-Mart if they wanted to, but many are drawn back again and again because of the Wal-Mart mantra - "Always low prices, always."
People, though they may complain about Wal-Mart's policies, still continually support the corporation with their dollars. As Fishman says, "Wal-Mart is not just a store, or a company, or a powerful institution. It is also a mirror. Wal-Mart is quintessentially American. It mirrors our own energy, our sense of destiny, our appetite for bigness and variety and innovation."
Monday, November 9, 2009
Might and Right
Reading Response: The Wal-Mart Effect (Chapters 1-4)
Wal-Mart is an extremely successful business - about this, no one can argue. The number of stores, the number of employees, and the amount of cash flow through their enterprise is truly mind-boggling. With massive size comes a very persuasive voice. Wal-Mart gets what Wal-Mart wants. Wal-Mart does what Wal-Mart wants.
It would be amazing if a company with Wal-Mart's clout used it for positive things, yet it seems like Wal-Mart has become an out of control monster, consuming everything in its path. I understand that a business' goal is to provide services and/or goods to its customers and not to act like a charity, yet when people make comments like "When you see the Wal-Mart smiley face, whistling and knocking down prices, somewhere there's a factory worker being kicked in the stomach" I have to wonder if Wal-Mart has gotten its priorities out of order.
Wal-Mart is an extremely successful business - about this, no one can argue. The number of stores, the number of employees, and the amount of cash flow through their enterprise is truly mind-boggling. With massive size comes a very persuasive voice. Wal-Mart gets what Wal-Mart wants. Wal-Mart does what Wal-Mart wants.
It would be amazing if a company with Wal-Mart's clout used it for positive things, yet it seems like Wal-Mart has become an out of control monster, consuming everything in its path. I understand that a business' goal is to provide services and/or goods to its customers and not to act like a charity, yet when people make comments like "When you see the Wal-Mart smiley face, whistling and knocking down prices, somewhere there's a factory worker being kicked in the stomach" I have to wonder if Wal-Mart has gotten its priorities out of order.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Fairness and Freedom
Reading Response: The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, by Michael Novak
Michael Novak makes a convincing argument for capitalism and raises some serious concerns about socialism. He writes, "As an idea, socialism has been forced by its own failures to retreat from the field of economics to the high ground of morality. " His basic argument is that, while socialism sounds good and moral, it just doesn't work. Capitalism, on the other hand, while not appearing as equal and humane, is actually more fair and just than socialism - plus, it actually works.
He is also concerned with socialism causing too much equality, in the sense that minorities would lose their voices because they would be lumped in with the majority, and that most of society's "amenities" would be lost if everyone was paid a middle-class wage. He argues that money is a good thing, and being wealthy is not evil, provided one does productive things with his or her money. He makes an interesting point when he says, " That riverside restaurant which we can afford to go to once in awhile, on special occasions, is in fact kept going by those who can afford to eat out there often and well: no rich, alas, no restaurant. " It is instances like these that the wealthy benefit the lower classes, not to mention all the foundations, hospitals, schools, museums, etc., that the wealthy help to fund.
He argues that, before immediately calling capitalism evil and socialism good, to look at all the facts. "...socialism is not an improvement upon democratic capitalism but a relapse into the tryannical unities from which the latter has emerged. A unitary, dominant, central state authority has been tried before. The enforcement of high moral ideals by coercion of law has been tried before."
I have always thought capitalism was a better economic way, but I was torn because of the morality arguments that socialism pushes. However, after reading Novak, I feel confident in saying that capitalism is good, and even fair. Not equal, but fair.
Michael Novak makes a convincing argument for capitalism and raises some serious concerns about socialism. He writes, "As an idea, socialism has been forced by its own failures to retreat from the field of economics to the high ground of morality. " His basic argument is that, while socialism sounds good and moral, it just doesn't work. Capitalism, on the other hand, while not appearing as equal and humane, is actually more fair and just than socialism - plus, it actually works.
He is also concerned with socialism causing too much equality, in the sense that minorities would lose their voices because they would be lumped in with the majority, and that most of society's "amenities" would be lost if everyone was paid a middle-class wage. He argues that money is a good thing, and being wealthy is not evil, provided one does productive things with his or her money. He makes an interesting point when he says, " That riverside restaurant which we can afford to go to once in awhile, on special occasions, is in fact kept going by those who can afford to eat out there often and well: no rich, alas, no restaurant. " It is instances like these that the wealthy benefit the lower classes, not to mention all the foundations, hospitals, schools, museums, etc., that the wealthy help to fund.
He argues that, before immediately calling capitalism evil and socialism good, to look at all the facts. "...socialism is not an improvement upon democratic capitalism but a relapse into the tryannical unities from which the latter has emerged. A unitary, dominant, central state authority has been tried before. The enforcement of high moral ideals by coercion of law has been tried before."
I have always thought capitalism was a better economic way, but I was torn because of the morality arguments that socialism pushes. However, after reading Novak, I feel confident in saying that capitalism is good, and even fair. Not equal, but fair.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Subservience and Authority
Reading Response: "What's Labor Got to Do with It? Capitalism and the Counterproject" - David Schweickart
Capitalism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. The only thing that could work is Schweickart's "counterproject" - a "best of both worlds" scenario is an "all embracing project for human emancipation."
Something that intrigues me about this piece is the section in which Schweickart describes the Economic Democracy. He starts out by saying that the authoritarian structure of most workplaces should be replaced with something more democratic, what he calls "worker self-management." Workers are responsible for all that happens in the workplace. However, once the firm increased in size, he said it would be necessary for the workers to appoint managers and executives. Then he says that although the workers control the workplace, they do not own the means of production.
Perhaps I am misreading this statement, but it seems as though Schweickart is writing in circles; Workers throw off authorities in order to govern themselves, but then appoint authorities over themselves. Although workers control the workplace and are responsible for everything that happens in it, they do not "own" it. Their workplace does not belong to them.
These statements make it seem like trying to combine the best parts of socialism and capitalism isn't really possible. Though each system has its flaws, it may be better for society to pick one and go with it, rather than making a series of qualifications that don't even seem like they support each other.
Actually, after today's video and discussion, I am reconsidering where I stand on this issue.
Capitalism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. The only thing that could work is Schweickart's "counterproject" - a "best of both worlds" scenario is an "all embracing project for human emancipation."
Something that intrigues me about this piece is the section in which Schweickart describes the Economic Democracy. He starts out by saying that the authoritarian structure of most workplaces should be replaced with something more democratic, what he calls "worker self-management." Workers are responsible for all that happens in the workplace. However, once the firm increased in size, he said it would be necessary for the workers to appoint managers and executives. Then he says that although the workers control the workplace, they do not own the means of production.
Perhaps I am misreading this statement, but it seems as though Schweickart is writing in circles; Workers throw off authorities in order to govern themselves, but then appoint authorities over themselves. Although workers control the workplace and are responsible for everything that happens in it, they do not "own" it. Their workplace does not belong to them.
These statements make it seem like trying to combine the best parts of socialism and capitalism isn't really possible. Though each system has its flaws, it may be better for society to pick one and go with it, rather than making a series of qualifications that don't even seem like they support each other.
Actually, after today's video and discussion, I am reconsidering where I stand on this issue.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Ploughmen and Gentlemen
Reading Response for "The Way to Wealth," by Benjamin Franklin
This selection is little more than a collection of Benjamin Franklin's proverbs from "Poor Richard's Almanac." That being said, there is an immense amount of wisdom and wit contained in this reading.
The whole piece relates to the subject of wealth - the gaining and the keeping. The many pithy quotes can be summarized as follows: Work hard, live within your means, and don't get into debt - if you do these things, you will be successful in life. The saying, "A ploughman on his legs is higher than a gentleman on his knees," gives honor to the diligent, working-class man, but takes it away from the wealthy man who has fallen prey to idleness and debt.
The particular saying, "At the working man's house hunger looks in, but dares not enter," seems reasonable and good, but based on the problems afflicting the working poor, as evidenced in Ehrenreich's study, we know it may not be this simple. Has our modern American system warped our view of hard work and the reward it should bring?
This selection is little more than a collection of Benjamin Franklin's proverbs from "Poor Richard's Almanac." That being said, there is an immense amount of wisdom and wit contained in this reading.
The whole piece relates to the subject of wealth - the gaining and the keeping. The many pithy quotes can be summarized as follows: Work hard, live within your means, and don't get into debt - if you do these things, you will be successful in life. The saying, "A ploughman on his legs is higher than a gentleman on his knees," gives honor to the diligent, working-class man, but takes it away from the wealthy man who has fallen prey to idleness and debt.
The particular saying, "At the working man's house hunger looks in, but dares not enter," seems reasonable and good, but based on the problems afflicting the working poor, as evidenced in Ehrenreich's study, we know it may not be this simple. Has our modern American system warped our view of hard work and the reward it should bring?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Reading Response: Evaluation from Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich
In her evaluation chapter, Ehrenreich sums up everything she learned in her minimum-wage-work experience, what the problems with the system are, and how they might be remedied. Unfortunately, not much of what she says is anything profound, and she has almost a self-righteous, arrogant twinge in her voice.
However, I was intrigued and enlightened by how she described the working poor in the last section of the chapter. "When someone works for less pay than she can live on -- when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently -- than she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made of a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life." Though I always try to treat everyone with respect and kindness (chatting with and thanking the cafeteria and janitorial workers, cleaning up after myself, etc.,) this quote very poignantly brings the state of our society into perspective. The work that minimum-wage workers do is not done because it is "all they're worth" or because we "deserve" their assistance. On the contrary, we are the recipients of a gift, and if we started acting like it, maybe things would actually change.
In her evaluation chapter, Ehrenreich sums up everything she learned in her minimum-wage-work experience, what the problems with the system are, and how they might be remedied. Unfortunately, not much of what she says is anything profound, and she has almost a self-righteous, arrogant twinge in her voice.
However, I was intrigued and enlightened by how she described the working poor in the last section of the chapter. "When someone works for less pay than she can live on -- when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently -- than she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made of a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life." Though I always try to treat everyone with respect and kindness (chatting with and thanking the cafeteria and janitorial workers, cleaning up after myself, etc.,) this quote very poignantly brings the state of our society into perspective. The work that minimum-wage workers do is not done because it is "all they're worth" or because we "deserve" their assistance. On the contrary, we are the recipients of a gift, and if we started acting like it, maybe things would actually change.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Hearthside and Heartache
Reading Response: Nickel and Dimed, section 1.
Barbara Ehrenreich did a gutsy thing when she decided to take on an intense journalism assignment; for a month she would live as a minimum wage worker to see if it was possible to make ends meet on such a small salary. She soon discovered, though, that it was impossible to remain cool and distant from the troubles and heartaches of the working poor when she was living as one.
One thing that she specifically complained about, which stood out to me, was having to wait tables for "Visible Christians." Those who were most noticeably believers tended to be the worst customers. "The worst, for some reason, are the Visible Christians-like the ten-person table, all jolly and sanctified after Sunday night service, who run me mercilessly and then leave me $1 on a $92 bill." As a strong Christian myself, it disheartens me when those who claim to follow Christ fall so disgustingly short and seem to think that they are exempt from acting like regular, respectable members of society.
So far, I like this book. The author is witty and the subject is engaging. I'm looking forward to reading more of Ms. Ehrenreich's adventures as one of the working poor.
Barbara Ehrenreich did a gutsy thing when she decided to take on an intense journalism assignment; for a month she would live as a minimum wage worker to see if it was possible to make ends meet on such a small salary. She soon discovered, though, that it was impossible to remain cool and distant from the troubles and heartaches of the working poor when she was living as one.
One thing that she specifically complained about, which stood out to me, was having to wait tables for "Visible Christians." Those who were most noticeably believers tended to be the worst customers. "The worst, for some reason, are the Visible Christians-like the ten-person table, all jolly and sanctified after Sunday night service, who run me mercilessly and then leave me $1 on a $92 bill." As a strong Christian myself, it disheartens me when those who claim to follow Christ fall so disgustingly short and seem to think that they are exempt from acting like regular, respectable members of society.
So far, I like this book. The author is witty and the subject is engaging. I'm looking forward to reading more of Ms. Ehrenreich's adventures as one of the working poor.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Making and Knowing
Reading Response: Hannah Arendt's Human Condition, pages 294-325.
"What is the difference between 'how' and 'why?'" My biology professor asked us this question when one of my classmates wondered why a certain reaction took place. He was quick to point out that science can only answer the "how" questions and never the "why" questions because asking "why" demands knowledge of a motive. There is no experiment that can determine motives - there are only experiments useful for observing how something happens.
Arendt seems to say that this view is modern. It makes sense when you think of ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato - they were so focused on the whys! Plato's forms, for example, gave a reason for why we humans are able to identify and distinguish objects from one another. Philosophy and science were tied closely together throughout ancient times.
In modern society though, especially in modern America, science is solely focused on the hows, rather than the whys. Perhaps this is because of the "separation of church and state" and scientists are fearful to venture out into the whys. Perhaps we shouldn't even try to tie science and philosophy together because maybe we have a better scientific method now. Maybe we're just lazy, and observable phenomena are more appealing to our minds than the tough meat of philosophy.
"What is the difference between 'how' and 'why?'" My biology professor asked us this question when one of my classmates wondered why a certain reaction took place. He was quick to point out that science can only answer the "how" questions and never the "why" questions because asking "why" demands knowledge of a motive. There is no experiment that can determine motives - there are only experiments useful for observing how something happens.
Arendt seems to say that this view is modern. It makes sense when you think of ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato - they were so focused on the whys! Plato's forms, for example, gave a reason for why we humans are able to identify and distinguish objects from one another. Philosophy and science were tied closely together throughout ancient times.
In modern society though, especially in modern America, science is solely focused on the hows, rather than the whys. Perhaps this is because of the "separation of church and state" and scientists are fearful to venture out into the whys. Perhaps we shouldn't even try to tie science and philosophy together because maybe we have a better scientific method now. Maybe we're just lazy, and observable phenomena are more appealing to our minds than the tough meat of philosophy.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Action and Calling
"For in every action what is primarily intended by the doer, whether he acts from natural necessity or out of free will, is the disclosure of his own image." - Dante
Is "calling" something for which we strive, or is it something in which we find ourselves? Rebecca Sweeney, after having been fired from sixteen jobs, had a lot of thinking to do on the subject. Those things that she thought she wanted to do (becoming a doctor, for example) she was never able to attain, and those things she never dreamed of doing she found herself in over and over again. In a profound statement, she said, "My idea of calling now is not: 'Come.' It's what I am doing right now, not what I'm going to be. Life is a calling."
I think her observation is a very wise one - one that ought to be heeded by many people today. It's disheartening that so many young people especially seem to have this notion that they must wait to "begin their lives" until after they get into college, or graduate college, or land their first job, or get married, or any number of "callings." Wouldn't life be much more fulfilling if every moment was seen as a calling? I think so. I'm trying to live my life with that mindset...I'll let you know how it turns out.
Is "calling" something for which we strive, or is it something in which we find ourselves? Rebecca Sweeney, after having been fired from sixteen jobs, had a lot of thinking to do on the subject. Those things that she thought she wanted to do (becoming a doctor, for example) she was never able to attain, and those things she never dreamed of doing she found herself in over and over again. In a profound statement, she said, "My idea of calling now is not: 'Come.' It's what I am doing right now, not what I'm going to be. Life is a calling."
I think her observation is a very wise one - one that ought to be heeded by many people today. It's disheartening that so many young people especially seem to have this notion that they must wait to "begin their lives" until after they get into college, or graduate college, or land their first job, or get married, or any number of "callings." Wouldn't life be much more fulfilling if every moment was seen as a calling? I think so. I'm trying to live my life with that mindset...I'll let you know how it turns out.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Jazz and Soul
"I would only consider myself outside the norm because of the way other people live. . . I could never bear to live the dull lives that most people live, locked up in offices. I live in absolute freedom. I do what I want because I want to do it. What's wrong with making a living doing something interesting?" - Bud Freeman, page 457, Working
Bud Freeman seems like a very paradoxical character - in some ways he seems like a bum who just wants to play music, and in other ways he seems like a brilliant, hardworking artist. I wonder if he really has a good point of view that just seems ridiculous because of society's value of "hard work" equaling packed days, or if he actually is lazy and won't take responsibility for his life.
While I tend to agree with him on the idea of finding a job that interests you and gives you opportunities for freedom, I feel like he has a bad attitude when it comes to his views of other people. He throws around terms like "dull lives" and states that he would be miserable as a "nine-to-five-man." I wonder if he ever allowed himself to take his focus off of himself long enough to look at other people. Supposedly, he "can't handle other people," so perhaps not.
PS. Regarding the Arendt reading, I'm really struggling with it. I'm looking forward to deciphering it in discussion tomorrow.
Bud Freeman seems like a very paradoxical character - in some ways he seems like a bum who just wants to play music, and in other ways he seems like a brilliant, hardworking artist. I wonder if he really has a good point of view that just seems ridiculous because of society's value of "hard work" equaling packed days, or if he actually is lazy and won't take responsibility for his life.
While I tend to agree with him on the idea of finding a job that interests you and gives you opportunities for freedom, I feel like he has a bad attitude when it comes to his views of other people. He throws around terms like "dull lives" and states that he would be miserable as a "nine-to-five-man." I wonder if he ever allowed himself to take his focus off of himself long enough to look at other people. Supposedly, he "can't handle other people," so perhaps not.
PS. Regarding the Arendt reading, I'm really struggling with it. I'm looking forward to deciphering it in discussion tomorrow.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Housewives and Homemakers
"The reality and reliability of the human world rest primarily on the fact that we are surrounded by things more permanent than the activity by which they were produced, and potentially even more permanent that the lives of their authors." -Hannah Arendt, Human Condition, page 96
I have the dream of becoming a rural doctor and traveling to remote areas, bringing medicine where it has never been and I am willing to do whatever it takes to get there. However, my dream of becoming a wife and mother far overshadows even that dream. It disheartens me to hear mothers say "I'm just a mom" or "I'm just a housewife." What profession could possibly be greater than cultivating and nurturing new human lives here on planet Earth? What other profession could be more dynamic, more fulfilling, more exhausting, more exciting, more painful, more utterly heart-stopping than bringing life into this world, caring for it, and watching it grow?
I think Hannah Arendt speaks truth when she says that we have to be surrounded by things more permanent than we are in order to give life its reality and reliability. Think of a mother - it could seem like drudgery to wash dishes one more time, or meaningless to do laundry one more time. However, what is the greater thing being accomplished by those "meaningless" tasks? Children are being raised! People are becoming! Lives are being changed in the home! This is perhaps one of the things of permanence of which Arendt speaks. Because of a mother's (and father's, of course) love and care, her children will grow into great adults and begin raising families of their own. In this continuous cycle is permanence...not meaninglessness.
"This is my offering. I think it's the greatest satisfaction in the world to know you've pleased somebody. Everybody has to feel needed. I know I'm needed. I'm doing it for them and they're doing it for me. And that's the way it is." Therese Carter, Working, page 303
I have the dream of becoming a rural doctor and traveling to remote areas, bringing medicine where it has never been and I am willing to do whatever it takes to get there. However, my dream of becoming a wife and mother far overshadows even that dream. It disheartens me to hear mothers say "I'm just a mom" or "I'm just a housewife." What profession could possibly be greater than cultivating and nurturing new human lives here on planet Earth? What other profession could be more dynamic, more fulfilling, more exhausting, more exciting, more painful, more utterly heart-stopping than bringing life into this world, caring for it, and watching it grow?
I think Hannah Arendt speaks truth when she says that we have to be surrounded by things more permanent than we are in order to give life its reality and reliability. Think of a mother - it could seem like drudgery to wash dishes one more time, or meaningless to do laundry one more time. However, what is the greater thing being accomplished by those "meaningless" tasks? Children are being raised! People are becoming! Lives are being changed in the home! This is perhaps one of the things of permanence of which Arendt speaks. Because of a mother's (and father's, of course) love and care, her children will grow into great adults and begin raising families of their own. In this continuous cycle is permanence...not meaninglessness.
"This is my offering. I think it's the greatest satisfaction in the world to know you've pleased somebody. Everybody has to feel needed. I know I'm needed. I'm doing it for them and they're doing it for me. And that's the way it is." Therese Carter, Working, page 303
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Humans and Action
Reading Response: Working by Studs Terkel, pages xxxi-xxxviii and The Human Condition, by Hannah Arendt, pages 22-78
It's all about people and action. As Hannah Arendt muses, "Man working and fabricating and building a world inhabited only by himself would still be a fabricator, though not a homo faber: he would have lost his specifically human quality...Action alone is the exclusive perogative of man; neither a beast nor a god is capable of it, and only action is entirely dependent upon the constant presence of others."
Mike Lefevre's entire interview was centered around his relationships and his frustrating lack of Action. He talked of his children, his wife, the men in the tavern, coworkers, his foreman - with all of them he had a different relationship, but they all influenced his life and his work. While he was doing much labor, he felt as though he was never really accomplishing anything (action.) As he said, "Everybody should have something to point to." In his mind, he was just an "old mule," an animal, a subhuman - all because the nature of work extracted Action and provided only work.
It's all about people and action. As Hannah Arendt muses, "Man working and fabricating and building a world inhabited only by himself would still be a fabricator, though not a homo faber: he would have lost his specifically human quality...Action alone is the exclusive perogative of man; neither a beast nor a god is capable of it, and only action is entirely dependent upon the constant presence of others."
Mike Lefevre's entire interview was centered around his relationships and his frustrating lack of Action. He talked of his children, his wife, the men in the tavern, coworkers, his foreman - with all of them he had a different relationship, but they all influenced his life and his work. While he was doing much labor, he felt as though he was never really accomplishing anything (action.) As he said, "Everybody should have something to point to." In his mind, he was just an "old mule," an animal, a subhuman - all because the nature of work extracted Action and provided only work.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Stone and Immortality
Reading Response for The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt, pages 1-21, and Working by Studs Terkel, pages xlv-xlix.
According to Hannah Arendt, "by their ability to leave nonperishable traces behind, men, their individual mortality notwithstanding, attain an immortality of their own and prove themselves to be of a 'divine' nature." Is it true? Do people really seek to feel immortal through the things they do or the things they build? I was somewhat skeptical of this claim until I read about Carl Murray Bates, the stonemason, in Terkel's book.
Bates had been a stonemason since he was seventeen years old in the Depression, and had developed a real love for his career over his next forty years on the job. He talks about how much he enjoys working with the stone, what pleasure he receives from building something well, and how much he loves being able to drive by the houses he's built years later and see them still standing firm. What surprised me though, was his comment at the end of his interview : "[It's] immortality as far as we're concerned. Nothin' in this world lasts forever, but did you know that stone - Bedford limestone, they claim - deteriorates one-sixteenth of an inch every hundred years? And it's around four or five inches for a house. So that's gettin' awful close. (Laughs.)" How very profound for this hardworking, honest craftsman to have found an inkling of divine nature in the very stones with which he built. Or is it so profound? Do we find the divine in our work too, as Hannah Arendt suggests?
According to Hannah Arendt, "by their ability to leave nonperishable traces behind, men, their individual mortality notwithstanding, attain an immortality of their own and prove themselves to be of a 'divine' nature." Is it true? Do people really seek to feel immortal through the things they do or the things they build? I was somewhat skeptical of this claim until I read about Carl Murray Bates, the stonemason, in Terkel's book.
Bates had been a stonemason since he was seventeen years old in the Depression, and had developed a real love for his career over his next forty years on the job. He talks about how much he enjoys working with the stone, what pleasure he receives from building something well, and how much he loves being able to drive by the houses he's built years later and see them still standing firm. What surprised me though, was his comment at the end of his interview : "[It's] immortality as far as we're concerned. Nothin' in this world lasts forever, but did you know that stone - Bedford limestone, they claim - deteriorates one-sixteenth of an inch every hundred years? And it's around four or five inches for a house. So that's gettin' awful close. (Laughs.)" How very profound for this hardworking, honest craftsman to have found an inkling of divine nature in the very stones with which he built. Or is it so profound? Do we find the divine in our work too, as Hannah Arendt suggests?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Dollars and Lives
Reading Response: Working, by Studs Terkel - (Work Nightmares: Atkins, Grayson, Clements, Ross)
The most striking thing in these selections is the immense void that seems to permeate these people's lives. Whether they are working as a receptionist, a welder, a felter in a luggage factory, or a business consultant, they all talk about how lonely and worn down they feel. They talk about feeling less than human and numb to the world around them. It really is a nightmare.
From Tuesday's reading we saw that some people can enjoy and take pride in "less desirable" jobs, even if it seems unlikely. So what is it that causes some jobs to be so dehumanizing? Is it the job itself? Is it the management? Is it the individual employee? I look forward to discussion tomorrow!
The most striking thing in these selections is the immense void that seems to permeate these people's lives. Whether they are working as a receptionist, a welder, a felter in a luggage factory, or a business consultant, they all talk about how lonely and worn down they feel. They talk about feeling less than human and numb to the world around them. It really is a nightmare.
From Tuesday's reading we saw that some people can enjoy and take pride in "less desirable" jobs, even if it seems unlikely. So what is it that causes some jobs to be so dehumanizing? Is it the job itself? Is it the management? Is it the individual employee? I look forward to discussion tomorrow!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Waitresses and Gravediggers
Reading Response: Working, Terkel. Selections by Pommier, Dante, Quaal, and Ruiz.
What intrigued me most about the selected readings was the amount of pride exuded by the people employed in, what many would consider, lower-class jobs. The parking attendant prided himself in his skill, how he could park a car "right in the hole" with only one hand. The waitress was filled with pride when customers requested her or when she was able to offer a bit of philosophy with her customers' morning coffee. The gravedigger considered it an honor that he was able to prepare graves for the dead and that he got to work outside all the time. The network announcer, though having a more "white-collar" job, still treated everyone with respect and never forgot his roots.
Reading these interviews makes one wonder why we even bother classifying careers based on "prestige" when people can take pride and enjoyment in any job! As Dolores Dante said, "I don't feel lowly at all. I myself feel sure. I don't want to change the job. I love it."
What intrigued me most about the selected readings was the amount of pride exuded by the people employed in, what many would consider, lower-class jobs. The parking attendant prided himself in his skill, how he could park a car "right in the hole" with only one hand. The waitress was filled with pride when customers requested her or when she was able to offer a bit of philosophy with her customers' morning coffee. The gravedigger considered it an honor that he was able to prepare graves for the dead and that he got to work outside all the time. The network announcer, though having a more "white-collar" job, still treated everyone with respect and never forgot his roots.
Reading these interviews makes one wonder why we even bother classifying careers based on "prestige" when people can take pride and enjoyment in any job! As Dolores Dante said, "I don't feel lowly at all. I myself feel sure. I don't want to change the job. I love it."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Alienation and "the Sense of Having"
Reading Response: The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844; On Alienated Labor, by Karl Marx
"We shall start out from an actual economic fact. The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces."
Marx wrote this statement in the midst of the Industrial Revolution when industry was king and people were quickly being reduced as a means to an end. Workers were slaving away on products for which they would never personally benefit, never get to see benefit another person, and in the process of spending so many hours working, were neglecting human relationships and their own creativity - Marx would even say they were neglecting their own "humanness." Take, for example, the man who sits in a factory for twelve hours a day putting heads on pins; all day long, every day of the week, he glues thousands of heads on thousands of pins. He himself will never use all of those pins. He will never see other people benefit from his pins. When he goes home at night, all he can do is eat and sleep in order to rest up for another day or gluing heads on pins. All of this work is being done so that he can receive a paycheck so he can afford food and shelter so that he can continue working, and so the cycle goes. This separation of workers from what they produced Marx dubbed "the alienation of labor" and he was acutely concerned for the condition of his fellow humans as they were being reduced to animals or worse, machines.
"We shall start out from an actual economic fact. The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces."
Marx wrote this statement in the midst of the Industrial Revolution when industry was king and people were quickly being reduced as a means to an end. Workers were slaving away on products for which they would never personally benefit, never get to see benefit another person, and in the process of spending so many hours working, were neglecting human relationships and their own creativity - Marx would even say they were neglecting their own "humanness." Take, for example, the man who sits in a factory for twelve hours a day putting heads on pins; all day long, every day of the week, he glues thousands of heads on thousands of pins. He himself will never use all of those pins. He will never see other people benefit from his pins. When he goes home at night, all he can do is eat and sleep in order to rest up for another day or gluing heads on pins. All of this work is being done so that he can receive a paycheck so he can afford food and shelter so that he can continue working, and so the cycle goes. This separation of workers from what they produced Marx dubbed "the alienation of labor" and he was acutely concerned for the condition of his fellow humans as they were being reduced to animals or worse, machines.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Labor and Self
Reading Response: Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chapter 5: Of Property, by John Locke (1690)
John Locke's philosophy on property can be summed up in a simple phrase: that which you work for is rightfully yours, provided you don't acquire more than you need. In this phrase, he puts out many of the common concerns regarding ownership of things and labor. For example, for those that worry about the rich amassing too much, Locke advises only taking as much as you need and not being wasteful. For those worried about the poor not being able to own property, he advises working hard and whatever one can care for, one can own. He felt that money was perhaps a hindrance to the "natural common law" which basically means that the earth and everything in it belongs to all men, and is enough for all men, provided they tend it responsibly. However, with the introduction of money, people were able to buy land and buy goods rather than really having to work for them. I think that Locke's views are refreshing and plain, but I doubt they could actually work in today's society with so many people striving for MORE.
Reading Response: The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (1776)
Where Locke encouraged individuals to care for themselves by working hard, Adam Smith advises people to care for themselves by catering to their neighbor's self-interest. For example, rather than one person trying to do everything for themselves, they should instead become highly skilled at a particular job and then "sell" their services or products to others who don't have the same skill. In return, one could by the things he or she needed from others. This is capitalism in a nutshell - the American Way. While this may seem practical on the surface, there is always the concern of what would happen to a person whose services were all of a sudden not needed. For example, if there is a cell phone repairman working in a store today, but if in the near future a new invention came out and people no longer used cell phones, the repairman would be out of a job. If he had no other skills, he would be out of luck. However, if he kept up his skills in other areas, then he would be able to move into another job with little headache. So while Smith's idea works for the most part, society still needs some of Locke's philosophy as well - work hard, work hard, work hard. Succeed.
John Locke's philosophy on property can be summed up in a simple phrase: that which you work for is rightfully yours, provided you don't acquire more than you need. In this phrase, he puts out many of the common concerns regarding ownership of things and labor. For example, for those that worry about the rich amassing too much, Locke advises only taking as much as you need and not being wasteful. For those worried about the poor not being able to own property, he advises working hard and whatever one can care for, one can own. He felt that money was perhaps a hindrance to the "natural common law" which basically means that the earth and everything in it belongs to all men, and is enough for all men, provided they tend it responsibly. However, with the introduction of money, people were able to buy land and buy goods rather than really having to work for them. I think that Locke's views are refreshing and plain, but I doubt they could actually work in today's society with so many people striving for MORE.
Reading Response: The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (1776)
Where Locke encouraged individuals to care for themselves by working hard, Adam Smith advises people to care for themselves by catering to their neighbor's self-interest. For example, rather than one person trying to do everything for themselves, they should instead become highly skilled at a particular job and then "sell" their services or products to others who don't have the same skill. In return, one could by the things he or she needed from others. This is capitalism in a nutshell - the American Way. While this may seem practical on the surface, there is always the concern of what would happen to a person whose services were all of a sudden not needed. For example, if there is a cell phone repairman working in a store today, but if in the near future a new invention came out and people no longer used cell phones, the repairman would be out of a job. If he had no other skills, he would be out of luck. However, if he kept up his skills in other areas, then he would be able to move into another job with little headache. So while Smith's idea works for the most part, society still needs some of Locke's philosophy as well - work hard, work hard, work hard. Succeed.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Socrates and Jesus
Socrates had an idea of the way society should be divided in order to secure "the greatest happiness of the whole [State]." Whether or not one agreed with him was of little significance - it was simply an idea he proposed. However, William Perkins took the principles that Socrates introduced and "Christianized" them. All of a sudden, these things that had just been ideas from one man were now the holy "will of God."
William Perkins started his argument with "...I mean to entreat of this point of vocation or calling; considering few men rightly know how to live and go on in their callings, so as they may please God." He then began to explain how God was like a General, who delegated roles and jobs among people and how they should not leave that to which they have been called.
What frustrates me is when Perkins begins to describe each role in life that "is not a sufficient calling" even though he had just said that it was God who designated callings and that we should do those things wholeheartedly, even if we don't particularly enjoy them. He also claimed that beggars and vagabonds should be dropped from society like "rotten legs" because they do not have a calling. It disheartens me to see one man's view doused with "God-language" just to make it seem more credible.
William Perkins started his argument with "...I mean to entreat of this point of vocation or calling; considering few men rightly know how to live and go on in their callings, so as they may please God." He then began to explain how God was like a General, who delegated roles and jobs among people and how they should not leave that to which they have been called.
What frustrates me is when Perkins begins to describe each role in life that "is not a sufficient calling" even though he had just said that it was God who designated callings and that we should do those things wholeheartedly, even if we don't particularly enjoy them. He also claimed that beggars and vagabonds should be dropped from society like "rotten legs" because they do not have a calling. It disheartens me to see one man's view doused with "God-language" just to make it seem more credible.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wealth and Poverty, Part II
Reading Response: Aristotle on Happiness - The Supreme Worth of Contemplation - selections from Nicomachean Ethics
Many people would agree that the "highest good attainable by action" is happiness. When people try to define what happiness is, however, it gets a little fuzzy. A sick person would say health is happiness, while a poor person might say wealth is happiness. Do excellence or honor bring happiness? Is happiness even the goal?
Perhaps happiness, according to Aristotle, is living out your function in life. But what is our function as humans? Is it simply to live? Aristotle believed that the function of humans was to live a certain kind of life, a "complete life"- one filled with good and proper actions, excellence, and virtue. He said, "But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a spring, nor does one sunny day." Even though this sounds like a great proposition, if one were to think it through, he would realize that Aristotle has not really told him anything he did not already know. Isn't it reasonable to think that "a good life" will lead to happiness...even if you don't exactly know what a "good life" entails?
Aristotle then comes to another conclusion - "if intelligence is divine in comparison with man, then a life guided by intelligence is divine in comparison with human life." So he determined that the best action for a person is contemplation, because it is the only action that is worthy in and of itself. For example, wealth is only beneficial because it allows it's owner to have other things - wealth in and of itself is worthless. Contemplation, or the cultivation of the mind, is the only thing that has intrinsic value.
Many people would agree that the "highest good attainable by action" is happiness. When people try to define what happiness is, however, it gets a little fuzzy. A sick person would say health is happiness, while a poor person might say wealth is happiness. Do excellence or honor bring happiness? Is happiness even the goal?
Perhaps happiness, according to Aristotle, is living out your function in life. But what is our function as humans? Is it simply to live? Aristotle believed that the function of humans was to live a certain kind of life, a "complete life"- one filled with good and proper actions, excellence, and virtue. He said, "But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a spring, nor does one sunny day." Even though this sounds like a great proposition, if one were to think it through, he would realize that Aristotle has not really told him anything he did not already know. Isn't it reasonable to think that "a good life" will lead to happiness...even if you don't exactly know what a "good life" entails?
Aristotle then comes to another conclusion - "if intelligence is divine in comparison with man, then a life guided by intelligence is divine in comparison with human life." So he determined that the best action for a person is contemplation, because it is the only action that is worthy in and of itself. For example, wealth is only beneficial because it allows it's owner to have other things - wealth in and of itself is worthless. Contemplation, or the cultivation of the mind, is the only thing that has intrinsic value.
Wealth and Poverty
Reading Response: Plato's Republic - Justice in the City and the Soul
What is justice? What is injustice? We seem to use these terms often, but do we ever really think about what they mean? In Plato's Republic, we have a transcription of Socrates asking Adeimantus similar questions. Socrates' idea was that if we can decide what is justice/injustice in the State, we can then see what it is in individuals.
Socrates made a proposition that society would be more benefited if each person did that for which he was best suited and did only that. Then, all people in the State would provide for one another based on their own skills. For example, a farmer would grow crops for him and his neighbor, and a carpenter would build houses for himself and his neighbor. Then the farmer would provide food for the carpenter, and the carpenter would provide shelter for the farmer. This Utopian society seems plausible until Socrates begins asking more questions: Where would the farmer get his oxen and plows? Where would the carpenter get his tools? Where would either of them get their shoes or clothes? Or healthcare? Or protection? Soon the imagined society would need many more people. Adeimantus brought up another slant to the whole proposition: can people live and be happy in such a society or would they begin to want the luxuries of life in addition to the necessities?
Socrates determines that "wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and [poverty] of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent." It is interesting to point out that Socrates did not believe people should try to change their class or social status because that would disrupt the society and thus be unjust. So can there be an ideal society in which every one does only that at which he is skilled, shares his skills with his neighbors, and gets neither too wealthy nor too poor? If there can be, that society would be truly just in Socrates' opinion. As he said, "...our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole."
What is justice? What is injustice? We seem to use these terms often, but do we ever really think about what they mean? In Plato's Republic, we have a transcription of Socrates asking Adeimantus similar questions. Socrates' idea was that if we can decide what is justice/injustice in the State, we can then see what it is in individuals.
Socrates made a proposition that society would be more benefited if each person did that for which he was best suited and did only that. Then, all people in the State would provide for one another based on their own skills. For example, a farmer would grow crops for him and his neighbor, and a carpenter would build houses for himself and his neighbor. Then the farmer would provide food for the carpenter, and the carpenter would provide shelter for the farmer. This Utopian society seems plausible until Socrates begins asking more questions: Where would the farmer get his oxen and plows? Where would the carpenter get his tools? Where would either of them get their shoes or clothes? Or healthcare? Or protection? Soon the imagined society would need many more people. Adeimantus brought up another slant to the whole proposition: can people live and be happy in such a society or would they begin to want the luxuries of life in addition to the necessities?
Socrates determines that "wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and [poverty] of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent." It is interesting to point out that Socrates did not believe people should try to change their class or social status because that would disrupt the society and thus be unjust. So can there be an ideal society in which every one does only that at which he is skilled, shares his skills with his neighbors, and gets neither too wealthy nor too poor? If there can be, that society would be truly just in Socrates' opinion. As he said, "...our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Keys and Keyholes
Reading Response: In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell
Which would you say is the better use of one's time - idleness or hard work? Most people would say hard work, after all, "Idle hands are the Devil's playground." But when people are working hard all day long, nearly everyday of the week, how are they to have time to do anything else? Either they are working or are exhausted from working. And what about those who are unemployed because of the hard workers "taking" all of the available jobs and accomplishing all of the necessary tasks? Society ends up with a large exhausted population, a large poor population, and a small wealthy, idle population.
Russell's solution to this problem was to more evenly distribute the jobs among the people. By cutting hours to four hours a day, more people would be able to be employed. Also, one would have more free time to be able to pursue whatever he wished, while also receiving the satisfaction (and salary) of hard work. Implementing this plan in society was not as much a part of Russell's desire as it was to shake up the perspectives of his readers. He was writing in the midst of the Great Depression - many people were unemployed and were feeling like they were not doing their "duty" as Americans, or even as humans, because they were not working. Russell wanted his readers to realize that idleness was just as beneficial to people as was hard work. After all, without time spent in pursuing one's own interests, great works of literature may never have been written, electricity may never have been harnessed, and people may have never gotten off the ground...or flown to the moon, for that matter.
Which would you say is the better use of one's time - idleness or hard work? Most people would say hard work, after all, "Idle hands are the Devil's playground." But when people are working hard all day long, nearly everyday of the week, how are they to have time to do anything else? Either they are working or are exhausted from working. And what about those who are unemployed because of the hard workers "taking" all of the available jobs and accomplishing all of the necessary tasks? Society ends up with a large exhausted population, a large poor population, and a small wealthy, idle population.
Russell's solution to this problem was to more evenly distribute the jobs among the people. By cutting hours to four hours a day, more people would be able to be employed. Also, one would have more free time to be able to pursue whatever he wished, while also receiving the satisfaction (and salary) of hard work. Implementing this plan in society was not as much a part of Russell's desire as it was to shake up the perspectives of his readers. He was writing in the midst of the Great Depression - many people were unemployed and were feeling like they were not doing their "duty" as Americans, or even as humans, because they were not working. Russell wanted his readers to realize that idleness was just as beneficial to people as was hard work. After all, without time spent in pursuing one's own interests, great works of literature may never have been written, electricity may never have been harnessed, and people may have never gotten off the ground...or flown to the moon, for that matter.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
So what's with the name?
Synonyms and Antonyms - where did that come from?
I was wracking my brain, trying to come up with a good title for a Meaning of Work blog other than "Casey's Meaning of Work Blog." So I pulled out the thesaurus to look up synonyms of the words "meaning" and "work" hoping to come up with some interesting word play for a title. When I looked up the word "work," this is what I found:
Word: work
Synonyms: labor, chore, drudgery, toil, undertaking, commitment, stress, industry, etc...
Antonyms: entertainment, fun, pastime
It dawned on me that, so often, we try to categorize and separate work and play, when perhaps they aren't so exclusive. So the title of my blog speaks of bringing together both literal and proverbial synonyms and antonyms and as a result, blurring the lines between the two.
I was wracking my brain, trying to come up with a good title for a Meaning of Work blog other than "Casey's Meaning of Work Blog." So I pulled out the thesaurus to look up synonyms of the words "meaning" and "work" hoping to come up with some interesting word play for a title. When I looked up the word "work," this is what I found:
Word: work
Synonyms: labor, chore, drudgery, toil, undertaking, commitment, stress, industry, etc...
Antonyms: entertainment, fun, pastime
It dawned on me that, so often, we try to categorize and separate work and play, when perhaps they aren't so exclusive. So the title of my blog speaks of bringing together both literal and proverbial synonyms and antonyms and as a result, blurring the lines between the two.
So what the heck is this all about?
The meaning of work. What is the meaning of work? Is there a meaning of work? Is the question crucial or irrelevant? Does the question even make sense?
Throughout this coming semester I, along with my classmates, hope to explore these ideas. In this blog I'll be posting reading responses, interesting discussions from class, and my own reflections on what I learn.
There is much to be discussed, learned, explored, rejected, accepted, turned-upside-down, turned-right-side-up, and all around "tinkered with." Ready?
Throughout this coming semester I, along with my classmates, hope to explore these ideas. In this blog I'll be posting reading responses, interesting discussions from class, and my own reflections on what I learn.
There is much to be discussed, learned, explored, rejected, accepted, turned-upside-down, turned-right-side-up, and all around "tinkered with." Ready?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
