Is victory everything?

Is victory everything?
The presidential candidate Jiri Drahos lost last week the election against the incumbent Milos Zeman. I read an analysis that one of the reasons was that he did not use the beligerent rhetorics, lies and invectives that Zeman used. People want to see a strong not distinguished leader and that is the reason why Zeman won. Drahos´s wife told the press that she does not consider it a victory which is in my view a vital statement. should Drahos use the same approach as Zeman did, he might have won but he would have lost morally. This would be a victory against Zeman but a loss against himself. I still consider Drahos a better president just due to the fact that he did not accept the style that Zeman did but rather stuck to his guns in this fashion. Morally acceptably way of living is a better result although not winning the election might be detrimental for the nation. After all, the true winner of the election is not Zeman with his lies and rudeness but paradoxically the one that lost the presidency but showed that it is possible to win although one is not the chosen one by vox populi. Zeman on the other hand won the presidency again but delved even deeper into his fake incredulity and (long lost) moral integrity


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisements
Standard

Fake news vs. fake problems

Fake news vs. fake problems
I read a commentary from Denmark where there was a discussion about letting the migrants from east in or whether they should secure the borders and not let them in. One of the guest told the host that the handful of migrant that are coming to such states as Denmark, and my country as well is so negligible, that it is virtually stupid to be so ferociously belligerent against them. This approach can be compared to misoneism as well (the previous article) because rather than seeing the opportunity to help them-make us feel better, do the right thing for the few incoming people) or learn from different culture, we and other inland countries which do not have to secure their border are the loudest against the migrants. The commentator called it a paraphrase of fake news-namingly fake problems. This denotation corresponds to the whole paradigm of hatred agaisnt the migrants. We have fake news and we have fake problems as well. It seems to me that on one hand, the president of any country should listen to the voice of the crowd. On the other hand, president should also function as a kind of moral authority for others. we do not live in the paradigm of Plato who supposed that an enlightened monarch with ultimate power would be better than democratic system, nevertheless, the president should also steer the voice of people to a more fundamental and sophisticated discourse. If people say they are afraid of migrants and that is why they do not want them here, it is necessary to show compassion towards them and teach it the people as well. by saying this, Ido not think that people should be directed towards a different view, not at all. All I am saying is that president should not keep people living in a lie, in fake news and fake problems and show them that letting a sustainable number of migrants in is not a problem at all but the opposite-enrichement of our culture- of course under the condition that they adapt and follow our legislature and law. This should be the first and foremost condition. I do not say that we should teach them Christianity if they are Muslims, but everyone here must obey the same law-Christians and Muslims as well and it does not matter whether they are indigenous people here or incoming. Of course, it is difficult to impose on everyone because we are born in a certain country,under a certain rule and influence and we basically cannot choose so easily that from now on I live somewhere else. Being born somewhere is something I did not choose. I should accept it and accept it also vica versa-people born under dire conditions also did not choose it so it is in a way my duty to help them and share something from the wealth I have to improve also their well being and contribute to a more balanced and fair world. I would like to conclude this entry with a quotation from Romans 15:1. We who are strong, should bear with the infirmities of the weak and not please ourselves.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Misoneism-fear of new

Misoneism-fear of new

My country just chose the same president for another five years. The incument Milos Zeman is a controversial figure. I do not want to state my opinion about him because it is largely negative. Nevertheless, one topic I would like to focus is the fear of the unknown which is the reason why Czech people chose the same person which is an embodiment of embarassment and an epitome of rudness at the same time. People fear the new because it is something that one has to understand first and after that one can choose whether it is good for one or not. usually people try to avoid new things and stay in the old state.This is not good because they think that the new might be even worse. nevertheless, this approach is stupid because mankind would never move on. People are afraid of the new because they are negative and I think that this can be applied to older people more than young because elderly were the majority of voters of Milos Zeman. we as Czechs like to stay – or even like staying in the plight we are in rather than taking risk of electing something, someone new. We do not see the possibility of things getting better, which is a shame. The new- in this case a new unknown person as a president is basically inexplicable, at least for the time being for the spectator and thus unfamiliar, strange and consequently dangerous – therefore misoneism appears. One feels most safely within the surrounding of the old and known. People generally rather stay in something known than venturing to take the risk of something unknown-which may be better. Jentsch in his Psychology of the Uncanny says about misoneism: It is an old experience that the traditional, the usual and the hereditary is dear and familiar to most people, and that they incorporate the new and the unusual with mistrust, unease and even hostility. This can be explained to a great extent by the difficulty of establishing quickly and completely the conceptual connections that the object strives to make with the previous ideational sphere of the individual – in other words, the intellectual mastery of the new thing. The brain is often reluctant to overcome the resistances that oppose the assimilation of the phenomenon in question into its proper place. Having said that, we get to the so called Stockholm syndrom. This became known in connection to terrorism, where the victims of terrorists became used to their treatment and virtually did not want to be freed once they had the chance. I dare say that within the context of terrorism this is an extreme case, nevertheless, take for example abused wives or children. it is no exceptional case when a woman stays with her aggressive partner because she is too afraid to leave him and try something new. For her, it is better to be in such a plight than venturing something new, something unknown. we may also spot a kind of cindarella complex with a certain group of women. This means that a woman (or a man) is fully-fledged to escape the relationship but needs someone (usually man) to help her. This is seen in the fairy tales cindarella, where a strong emancipated woman stays subjugated (virtually in her free will) by her older sisters. Only once a prince arrives that helps her from her situation is she finally freed. This is also a paralel to Stockholm complex. such a person may really be unhappy, but the unhappiness is not as strong as the fear of new. such misoneism can be seen in Czech society. For most people it is better to stay in such a predicament rather than seeing the positivity of change. all life is change. even in Bible it is said that we should not dwell in the old but get rid of the old and accept the new until it is not too late, until the old devours us for ever.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Dichotomy as a social construct

Dichotomy as a social construct
At first I wanted to name this article end of right and left wing. In my country there are elections right now and the candidates for the president office are more and more likely to end the difference between right and left because they see that the people and vox populi (we have direct vote for the president) is very likely to not listen to the traditional dichotomy of right and left. today it is necessary to attract people not to the traditional difference but to something else. The encumbent is populistically claiming that he is the president of the low ten millions of people (surprisingly, my country has ten millions of residents). These talks are very hard to overcome once the oppositinal candidate wants to talke facts and unpleasant words that belong to the correct way of doing politics-one cannot have the sweet without the sour. Drawing back to the dichotomy of right and left, I also see that other dichotomies-social constructs are losing their former strength and value, although some would be glad if this did not happen. Take for example race. Till some time, it was terribly important to keep this construct working because the whole economy of the former south of US was based on free labor by black people. It was impossible the draw the line perfectly and thus they chose to set a -one drop rule- meaning that just one ancester in ones blood line was from African descent and they would consider such an individual black, basically property-thus without any rights. Race is a social construct from the presumption that there is a fine line between ˋracesˋ. It is virtually impossible to distinguish one from the other. Now imagine that the only facter one uses is ones color of sking, which is preposterous. What does the color mean? If we come back to Blumenbachs distinction of five races, we see that even he could not be sure about it. Although he lived in a world that was not so globally interconnected and where people from same community (usually same color) pursued marriage from the same community, even then it clearly could not be possible to find a representative that would fulfill all the traits that that particular race should have. Nevertheless, nowadays social antropologists believe this is virtually useless and irrelevant taxonomy which brings us nowhere. This black and white vision can only bring us to division of people, nothing else. Why would we need it? In the end it is not about differences and although differences between people exist, there is no need to try to create division between races- which paradoxically do not exist. Take for example the difference between men and women. We may accept that in generaly male and female population there are differences which should be accepted and used to benefit from our social interaction between men and women, but not for creation of division between male and female world by saying that due to some intrinsic differences men or women are better than the other part. I have the famous book by dr. Gray on mind-men are from mars, women from venus. He gives very vivid examples of the differences between men and women and although I do not agree with all of them, I basically think that he is right in the claim that perception of (most) women is same and the same can be applied vica versa to men. This distinction should be used as a bridge to mutual understanding, not as something that should divide us even more.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

footprint of ones life

I had a discussion with a friend of mine who was talking about her musical ambitions and that she wanted to create a trace of her work so that she is not forgotten. I later thought to myself whether such approach is really what makes us happy and what should b e strived for. This predicament made me think about what really matters and what counts when one thinks about agood life, happiness, meaning in what we do. I do not think that it is some trace that must remain for ever. I think that what is areal happiness is the ability to step away from ones ego and focus on bonum comune-general good. When I make people around me happy, when they feel like being glad in my company, then I think I lead a meaningful life. this does not say that I should follow the happiness of other and forget my own. it would not be possible. I read a survey which says that people who are happy and content also tend to make others happy. in other words, the happier I am, the happier people around me are. it also works vica versa. The less happy I am, the less happy people around me are because happines or unhappiness both are also effective on the subconscious level. people around me feel that I am despondent or negative and after a while of consolation (if unsuccesful) lose interest in being in my presence-thus one loses friends when one is not happy and this vicious circle does not end because I further lose friends and opportunities to get better once I do not feel well. So, first to make others happy, I myself must lead a content life. on the other hand, once I make other happy (even though I try to create a facade, semblance of happiness) others also make happy me. This can then break the vicious circle. nevertheless, true friends should understand the reciprocity of help when one feels negative emotions because them might feel unwell in the future and I shall be willing to help them once they help me, them not doing the first step notwithstanding. I come to a conclusion that what matters is not future, what is left behind once I die, because people that I make happy also die, forget and memories fade out and yet it was not a wasted life.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

interesting

interesting
what does this word means? I encounter it so many times and I come to a realization that once one does not know how todefine some entity, occasion or so then the one calls it interesting. it basically says nothing except that the thing in focus is in a way appealing but undescribable or inexplicable. the word interesting can be very hard to define because the denotation itself would be interesting and we get to a kind of tautology via this approach. I heard about a project where children were to describe things which they would normally call interesting with other denotations and names than interesting. it was obvious how hard it is for them because interesting can be used for basically everything. once I do not want to lose time with describing something that is hard for me to describe. by not using the word interesting I develop my brain and for young children especially it is very useful to not be fine with using the word that virtually does not mean anything at all.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

State of our state

I missed a tram the other day and had to wait four more minutes to take another. at first, I got angry and then I realized how stupid this approach is. a similar event was when I had to wait in a queue. it was almost ridiculous of me, I then thought, to act like that because there are so many people who would be happy to wait for a whole day in a queue just to get the basic food and I do not know what to choose from the surplus of goods in the shelves. same with public transport. I sometimes hear people talking with dersion or even disdain or contempt about public transport because it is slow and not comfortable. I cannot say that public transport in czech republic is worse than in England, Germany or Austria, which are coutnries that are economically better than Czech Republic. these people (and myself as well sometimes) do n ot appreciate what we have and even poison our (their) everyday life for no reason. on the other hand, it is useful to try to improve this (already fine) society (compared to some poorer or developing contries) because standstill is what leads us to blind alley and which is I think the worst state imaginable. change and dynamics is what drives our society to be better and better.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard