Christmas is a complicated topic. There are those who would disagree with this assessment, and argue that it is a straightforward religious holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ.
In present-day America, Christmas is a federal holiday, and in many ways the biggest holiday of the year, celebrated to at least some extent by many non-Christians as well as Christians. It is a major economic event, largely due to the purchase and exchange of Christmas gifts, but also because of Christmas traveling, Christmas decorating, and Christmas celebrating.
Especially in recent years, controversies have erupted over the extent to which Christmas -- ostensibly a religious holiday -- is celebrated in our secular society, including our public schools and other public buildings and lands. At one time, most public schools in the United States acknowledged Christmas with decorations and Christmas programs featuring students singing Christmas songs, but this is changing, sometimes replacing religious songs with secular ones. It is easy enough to focus on the secular aspect, since a prominent feature of American Christmas is Santa Claus delivering presents to all the good little girls and boys -- which is not overtly connected to anyone's birth in a manger.
It is tempting to state that Christmas has evolved away from a purely Christian holiday, but the fact is that it most likely never was a purely Christian holiday. Many theologians doubt that Jesus was actually born on December 25, and it is widely believed that the Christian holiday was superimposed upon previously-existing holidays, especially the Roman festival of Saturnalia. Many of the things now considered to be traditional aspects of Christmas -- things such as decorating with evergreens and mistletoe -- seem to be descended from totally non-Christian midwinter celebrations.
In the last century, commercialization has transformed the observance of Christmas. For example, though we still sing of "The Twelve Days of Christmas", few Americans today realize that the song refers to the period of time BEGINNING on December 25th. With the emphasis on shopping for gifts, many now view the "Christmas Season" as ending on December 25th -- though since the celebration of Christmas has somewhat been combined with the celebration of the New Year, the "Holiday Season" may extend to January 1.
This business about "the Christmas Season" happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I do not believe in taking down my Christmas decorations prior to January 6 -- "Epiphany" -- at the earliest, and I sometimes do not put them up much before December 25. This puts me "out of sync" with my neighbors -- many of whom put up their decorations in November, and remove them by December 26, or perhaps January 1.
Yet another factor that complicates the idea of Christmas in our society is that Christmas is a traditional time for family gatherings, and represents a milestone in our lives. People who are terminally ill, as well as their loved ones, hope they can survive "until Christmas". Christmas is a time when we miss our homes and our loved ones, especially those who have recently died.
The complicated nature of Christmas in our society guarantees that each of us will view the season from a different perspective, ranging from a deeply religious holiday to a strictly commercial event to simply a major disruption in the normal routine. Anyone who claims that Christmas is solely one of these things is ignoring the reality and diversity of our lives.
This brief discussion barely scratches the surface. Whether we like it or not, Christmas is a major event for contemporary American society, and a magical, spiritual time for many. We are bound together by our stories, songs, and traditions of Christmas, and by our memories, good and bad. As for the controversies over school programs with children singing Christmas carols and people saying "Merry Christmas", I blame extremists on both sides for finding ways to quarrel over what most agree should be, if anything, a time of peace, sharing, and love, regardless of your own religious beliefs.
Truth is complicated. Merry Christmas to all!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Good
Only One Good
I try to focus on truth, and I try to label things that are purely my opinion as purely my opinion, and what I am about to state is purely my opinion, and I cannot prove it, and I cannot imagine that it ever COULD be proven, BUT it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy.
I believe that whatever is truly "good" for me is truly good for all people, including you, and whatever is truly "bad" for you is truly bad for all people, including me. "Good" and "bad" are "relative" only with regard to the fact that one thing may be "better" or "worse" than another thing -- but things always retain their same position with regard to each other, and this has nothing to do with your point of view.
I like to visualize this concept as a numbered straight line, with perfect good at one end and perfect bad at the other end -- let's say perfect good is at one hundred and perfect bad is at zero. Anything that HAS a "good" or "bad" quality -- many things have no such attribute -- falls at some precise point on this line between perfect good and perfect bad. I do not claim to know at WHAT point it falls -- mere mortals can never know WHERE on this line a thing falls -- but this is irrelevant. The important idea is that each thing falls at one precise point on the line.
To illustrate: Imagine that a pickpocket steals my wallet, and I never see it again. It's tempting to view this scenario as "good" for the pickpocket and "bad" for me, but I believe that this event falls at some precise point on the line -- perhaps "forty-two", which would be more bad than good. Whereas it might have more of an immediate "bad" impact on my life than on the pickpocket's life, I believe that in reality this event is JUST as bad (or good) for the pickpocket as it is for me. Or imagine that the pickpocket is caught and prosecuted, and I get my wallet back with all its contents. This event would probably fall somewhere else on the line, but I still believe the outcome would be equally good or bad for both the pickpocket and me.
I absolutely cannot offer any proof that this is true, but it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy. I claim no ability to know WHERE anything falls on the line between absolute good and absolute bad. The crucial idea is that anything with a good or bad value falls at a precise point that has nothing to do with perspective. I do not claim that this is undeniably true, but it is an important idea in my life.
The cynical and the selfish could say, "Okay, then give me all of your money and possessions and do everything you can to please ME, because that will be good for ME and therefore good for YOU." This example actually illustrates my point. It is probably NOT "good" for me to give you all my money and possessions and work to please you, and it probably will not even make YOU happy. On the other hand, this is pretty much what some cult leaders say, and perhaps sometimes it works out for everyone, and IS good.
The challenge lies in trying to do the "right" thing, the thing that will be "good" for you and for everyone else. I am not recommending that anyone think only in terms of their own self-interest -- I do not believe that will make ANYONE happy, in the long run.
I freely admit that this philosophy cannot be proven, and has various weaknesses. Some would say that since we can never KNOW what is truly "good", the whole concept is irrelevant, and there is no point in trying to do the "right" thing. I say that even though we can never know, if you THINK you are doing the "wrong" thing, you had best not be doing it.
I try to focus on truth, and I try to label things that are purely my opinion as purely my opinion, and what I am about to state is purely my opinion, and I cannot prove it, and I cannot imagine that it ever COULD be proven, BUT it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy.
I believe that whatever is truly "good" for me is truly good for all people, including you, and whatever is truly "bad" for you is truly bad for all people, including me. "Good" and "bad" are "relative" only with regard to the fact that one thing may be "better" or "worse" than another thing -- but things always retain their same position with regard to each other, and this has nothing to do with your point of view.
I like to visualize this concept as a numbered straight line, with perfect good at one end and perfect bad at the other end -- let's say perfect good is at one hundred and perfect bad is at zero. Anything that HAS a "good" or "bad" quality -- many things have no such attribute -- falls at some precise point on this line between perfect good and perfect bad. I do not claim to know at WHAT point it falls -- mere mortals can never know WHERE on this line a thing falls -- but this is irrelevant. The important idea is that each thing falls at one precise point on the line.
To illustrate: Imagine that a pickpocket steals my wallet, and I never see it again. It's tempting to view this scenario as "good" for the pickpocket and "bad" for me, but I believe that this event falls at some precise point on the line -- perhaps "forty-two", which would be more bad than good. Whereas it might have more of an immediate "bad" impact on my life than on the pickpocket's life, I believe that in reality this event is JUST as bad (or good) for the pickpocket as it is for me. Or imagine that the pickpocket is caught and prosecuted, and I get my wallet back with all its contents. This event would probably fall somewhere else on the line, but I still believe the outcome would be equally good or bad for both the pickpocket and me.
I absolutely cannot offer any proof that this is true, but it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy. I claim no ability to know WHERE anything falls on the line between absolute good and absolute bad. The crucial idea is that anything with a good or bad value falls at a precise point that has nothing to do with perspective. I do not claim that this is undeniably true, but it is an important idea in my life.
The cynical and the selfish could say, "Okay, then give me all of your money and possessions and do everything you can to please ME, because that will be good for ME and therefore good for YOU." This example actually illustrates my point. It is probably NOT "good" for me to give you all my money and possessions and work to please you, and it probably will not even make YOU happy. On the other hand, this is pretty much what some cult leaders say, and perhaps sometimes it works out for everyone, and IS good.
The challenge lies in trying to do the "right" thing, the thing that will be "good" for you and for everyone else. I am not recommending that anyone think only in terms of their own self-interest -- I do not believe that will make ANYONE happy, in the long run.
I freely admit that this philosophy cannot be proven, and has various weaknesses. Some would say that since we can never KNOW what is truly "good", the whole concept is irrelevant, and there is no point in trying to do the "right" thing. I say that even though we can never know, if you THINK you are doing the "wrong" thing, you had best not be doing it.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Quotations
I enjoy quotations, but there is no way to escape the problems of attribution, translation, and context.
Though people may argue about the true source of a quotation, the fact is that no one can ever be certain of a quotation's origin. Even if you were present when someone made a statement, or wrote something down, THEY might have been quoting an earlier source, possibly without even knowing it. So the best we can do is acknowledge the person who is generally given credit for being the quotation's origin -- though sometimes these attributions are widely believed to be in error. There is also the fact that many people may have independently stated almost precisely the same idea. For example, various famous musicians are credited with observing that "There are only two kinds of music -- good and bad."
Then there is the issue of translation. Julius Caesar is given credit for the famous quotation, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Julius Caesar did not speak English. Julius Caesar MAY have used the Latin words, "Veni, vidi, vici" -- which is a compelling quotation, even for someone who does not speak Latin. I do not know who first translated "Veni, vidi, vici" into "I came, I saw, I conquered". They COULD have translated it as "I arrived, I viewed, and I subjugated", but that does not seem nearly as eloquent. My point is that the translator really should share the credit for many quotations, but rarely does.
Finally, there is the matter of context. It is tempting to assume that if someone says or writes something, it is something that they themselves believe to be true. This is often a false assumption. Quotations often come from works of fiction, or a person may even be ridiculing a certain idea. Many famous quotations come from Shakespeare, and many of these are spoken by characters in plays. The fact that a character in a play states, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" does not mean that Shakespeare himself was opposed to borrowing and lending, yet the quotation is attributed to Shakespeare. (I am deliberately ignoring the scholarly questions regarding the true source of Shakespeare's plays.)
Despite the facts that we can never be sure of the original source of any quotation, and many quotations are translations from other languages, and the quotation may not represent the actual belief of the person who made the statement, quotations eloquently present ideas for further contemplation. I do my best to give credit where credit is due, but I claim no certainty.
Though people may argue about the true source of a quotation, the fact is that no one can ever be certain of a quotation's origin. Even if you were present when someone made a statement, or wrote something down, THEY might have been quoting an earlier source, possibly without even knowing it. So the best we can do is acknowledge the person who is generally given credit for being the quotation's origin -- though sometimes these attributions are widely believed to be in error. There is also the fact that many people may have independently stated almost precisely the same idea. For example, various famous musicians are credited with observing that "There are only two kinds of music -- good and bad."
Then there is the issue of translation. Julius Caesar is given credit for the famous quotation, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Julius Caesar did not speak English. Julius Caesar MAY have used the Latin words, "Veni, vidi, vici" -- which is a compelling quotation, even for someone who does not speak Latin. I do not know who first translated "Veni, vidi, vici" into "I came, I saw, I conquered". They COULD have translated it as "I arrived, I viewed, and I subjugated", but that does not seem nearly as eloquent. My point is that the translator really should share the credit for many quotations, but rarely does.
Finally, there is the matter of context. It is tempting to assume that if someone says or writes something, it is something that they themselves believe to be true. This is often a false assumption. Quotations often come from works of fiction, or a person may even be ridiculing a certain idea. Many famous quotations come from Shakespeare, and many of these are spoken by characters in plays. The fact that a character in a play states, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" does not mean that Shakespeare himself was opposed to borrowing and lending, yet the quotation is attributed to Shakespeare. (I am deliberately ignoring the scholarly questions regarding the true source of Shakespeare's plays.)
Despite the facts that we can never be sure of the original source of any quotation, and many quotations are translations from other languages, and the quotation may not represent the actual belief of the person who made the statement, quotations eloquently present ideas for further contemplation. I do my best to give credit where credit is due, but I claim no certainty.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Why
"Why" is a dangerous word. There is an episode of the innovative 1960s TV series "The Prisoner" (as I type this I realize a "re-make" has already been produced and is currently airing, but THAT is an entirely different subject) in which the title character goes up against the most fantastic, all-knowing computer on earth. He is able to destroy it by simply typing four strokes on the keyboard: W-H-Y-? The computer burns itself up just trying to fathom the question. The question "Why?" truly is overwhelming.
When two or more people disagree, the word "why" tends to become poisonous. If you ask me why I believe something, or why I do something the way that I do it, there is a good chance that rather than seeking to understand me, you have already decided that I am WRONG, and you are simply seeking to point out the error of my ways. When someone says, "I do not understand why you are doing it that way," there is a good chance that what they MEAN is, "I believe you are doing it wrong," -- when they probably truly do NOT understand.
In debate, "why" tends to be irrelevant or at least misdirected. King Lear's daughters ask him why he needs to be accompanied by one hundred knights, and his answer is, "Oh, reason not the need!" King Lear wants what he wants, and it is not his daughters' place to question him. The issue has nothing to do with WHY he wants the knights.
It is possible that we may gain valuable insights by asking WHY we feel the way we do, or why we do something precisely the way that we do it, but being unable to explain or justify our feelings or actions does not make them any less valid or proper. At the same time, offering a well-reasoned justification for our feelings or actions does not necessarily make them more valid or more proper than those with differing views.
In a less personal sense, if we ask why something happened the way it happened, or why something is the way it is, the answers will usually involve oversimplification and conjecture. Still, we may gain insight by considering the question.
There is a famous quote along the lines of "Some people look at things and ask why, I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" (This quote is generally attributed to Robert Kennedy, but he seems to have been quoting George Bernard Shaw ...) On the surface, this quote is uplifting -- though it can also be viewed as arrogant, involving the speaker's apparent claimed ability to correctly fathom the intricacies of why and why not. In truth, these questions can never be answered with certainty. Truth is complicated.
When two or more people disagree, the word "why" tends to become poisonous. If you ask me why I believe something, or why I do something the way that I do it, there is a good chance that rather than seeking to understand me, you have already decided that I am WRONG, and you are simply seeking to point out the error of my ways. When someone says, "I do not understand why you are doing it that way," there is a good chance that what they MEAN is, "I believe you are doing it wrong," -- when they probably truly do NOT understand.
In debate, "why" tends to be irrelevant or at least misdirected. King Lear's daughters ask him why he needs to be accompanied by one hundred knights, and his answer is, "Oh, reason not the need!" King Lear wants what he wants, and it is not his daughters' place to question him. The issue has nothing to do with WHY he wants the knights.
It is possible that we may gain valuable insights by asking WHY we feel the way we do, or why we do something precisely the way that we do it, but being unable to explain or justify our feelings or actions does not make them any less valid or proper. At the same time, offering a well-reasoned justification for our feelings or actions does not necessarily make them more valid or more proper than those with differing views.
In a less personal sense, if we ask why something happened the way it happened, or why something is the way it is, the answers will usually involve oversimplification and conjecture. Still, we may gain insight by considering the question.
There is a famous quote along the lines of "Some people look at things and ask why, I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" (This quote is generally attributed to Robert Kennedy, but he seems to have been quoting George Bernard Shaw ...) On the surface, this quote is uplifting -- though it can also be viewed as arrogant, involving the speaker's apparent claimed ability to correctly fathom the intricacies of why and why not. In truth, these questions can never be answered with certainty. Truth is complicated.