great deeds vs great people

great deeds vs great people
I realized that to change a paradigm of perception of some group it either takes a long time of usually large group of people or small time span or just one occasion or incident by a small group of people. building paradigm takes long time and it would be wiser to see the reality not through lenses of subjective paradigm, in other words to get rid of it but getting rid of paradigm is virtually impossible. I think that it is much more useful to realize that rather than destryoing paradigm we should change it to some other, because there comes another more or less subjective paradigm nevertheless. we always live through the prizm of subjective view, through our experiences, upbringing, opinions of people around us. replacing paradigm for on one hand subjective and yet accepting other subjective views as equally valuable and valid is the kind of paradigm that we should seek. it is basically something unparadigmatical and yet there is not pure possibility that we get rid of it and see everthing crystally clear. having said that, I would like to focus on big rather than great deeds. I now have national and religion minorities on mind. it is a long and strenous journey to create a reality not only a semblance of peace between nations and religions. one occasion may change everything. take for example the great changes that were imposed upon Japanese minority after pearl harbor or muslim minority after 9.11. A relatively small group of people changed totally and devastatingly the point of view about the minority and the whole minority and potential future of it was shattered by factors and restrictions that cropped up after these big deeds. it is very dangerous and usually detrimental that a relatively small group may change what happens to the bulk of the comunity and a much larger mass of people. how can we work with this topic? first and foremost I think that we should avoid any generalization. the fact that one has same belief and religion as someone else does not make them affiliated in any way. belief is purely subjective and individual. among muslims as well as among christians there are people who are devoted to the quest of love but also to the quest of hate and destruction. the fact that someone is of a same nationality (Japanese minority after 7.12.1941) or same belief 9.11. there is also the need to get rid of any national feelings because nation is something given, something inherent, something we do not have the slightest share on. it is like inteligence or physical appearance. it someone thinks that by being proud about something given (iq, nationality, beauty) one is a better person, then such person is very much mystified. on the other hand, it is natural to be in a closer affiliation or even bond with people who share same cultural background, history, customs but it should not make us a closed community to other cultural diversity and other people. let us focus on human and humanity instead of focusing on cultural stereotypes, prejudices and differences between people, nations, religions. nevertheless, if the customs of the former culture are in danger, there is a perfect reason to defend onself. in this respect we should not lose the sense of solidarity and see the incoming culture os enriching the former but not in some kind of fatalistic sense but in equally fair dialogue not monologue from any side.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisements
Standard

what is democracy?

what is democracy?
is this question so obvious or is the word just an empty denotation that is defined subjectively? I am afraid that the latter is more probable. the powerful need institutions like state, law, corporations-basically anything that can make people believe that they are secure. democracy is one of the strongest words the power that be can use. these institutions make people believe them. the word democracy is enough for many people to believe that certain state is a good place to live in, but in fact it is not a reality for many ‘democratic’ countries. on one hand, we should also be conscious about connotations it carries and not see democracy as some absolute unchangeable concept that guarantees security and welfare. not at all. as any liberal thinker would say, we need to uphold democracy. let us first define what it is. democracy in my view is political/not economical establishment or form of certain group-usually state. this regime should guarantee anyone inalienable rights which correspond with human rights. democracy means that anyone can contribute to the government of the group. to do this, we need to be equal and thus what one is allowed cannot be the other denied. now back to the democracy. if we accept that democracy and rights are two invaluable and intertwined concepts indispensable for a peaceful society, let us dig deeper to why the powerful need to maintain it and at the same time to undermine it. the powerful need to create a semblance of functionality and safety in order to make people believe that they need the powerful to protect them but in fact the powerful only follow their aims. we see it with current candidate for prime minister in czech republic Andrej Babis. he says and maybe even believes that the state can be run as a company. this is of course ludicruous because these are two opposite concepts-liberty vs totality. in democratic state, everyone has an equal say to anything. in a company-the chef can do anything and all the other must listen. this is exactly what is going to happen with the state if we stop questioning the democratic establishment in our country. and what is even more important, we should admit that democracy is not something that we achieve and have. not at all. it is terribly important to learn that democracy, similarly as truth is not something we have or achieve at some point of time in the future. it is something that virtually does not exist, shall not exist and yet all our existence is bound to be looking for it, paradoxically. if one thinks that one has the truth, as Babis thinks, then we see how extreme view may emerge and how difficult situations may arise. we opperate with the word, use it but in fact it is impossible to define it and yet indispensable for any discourse and dialogue that we want to uphold. this is what monarchs do not understand and Babis also not. totalitarian regimes think they know thetruth but are unfortunately much further from it that those who know that they do not know it, accept it and yet look for it the trouble notwithstanding. Jesus in the gospel says that if you think you see, then you are blind, if you say you do not have a sin, then you sin. it is indispensable for the future of mankind to accept that we sin, we do mistakes, we do not have the truth, democracy and virtues or perfections. but if we do not lose the will to seek it, then there is nothing more meaningful to do than looking for something that cannot be found-only with truth is such ‘irrational’ and for all other things irrelevant conduct meaningful.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

stereotypes in fairy tales

stereotypes in fairy tales
why are we fascinates by heroes in fairy tales? is there really something so intruiging in their behaviour of do we just compensate our plight in this lacrimarum valle that we are not so succesful as the hero is? on one hand, we admire the hero because he sets something and this he accomplishes. we have the archetype of journey which is perilous but in the end the hero kills the dragon and gets the princes for his wife. one of the stereotypes I see and which seems very strong and vital in the fairy tales is that it teaches young boys to be active and young girls to be passive. basically always the story is about a man who is active and a woman that is passive. man always gets the princess, only rarely is he helped by the princess.
on one hand, we admire the hero, on the other we envy him is feats and maybe in some dark corner of our minds we want to see him fall and fail. maybe the admiration is not so much a genuine interest in his life and story but rather a need to see him fail because then we may not feel so useless because we see that even heroes fail. is the hero really someone so perfect that we should admire him genuinely? does not he have his faults? one thing I noticed is the fact that the antihero-dragon, sorcer, monster or so is usually destroyed by the hero but not by his hand in principle. either the villain kills himself unintentionally – usually when he tries to kill the hero, or the villain kills himself, usually also unintentionally-stepping on something that kills him or stepping on a device he made to kill the hero. another way is that the villain is killed by the nature so that the hero is immaculate although the villain is an archetype of evil. what is evil in its core should be killed. this is what I like about those more comples and and so dogmatic fairy tales. they do not make the hero kill the villain because they know that there is not a dichotomy between good and evil, hero and villain. the hero is a character with more affable traits than the villain. the villain may have suffered or might have been mistread or something like that. some more basic stories show the hero as a perfect good and the villain as a perfect evil. this may be good for little children, to teach them the difference between good and evil, but in the end they will have to learn that there is nothing like a dichotomy between good and evil but that there is a fine line between every such distinction. on the other hand I like the fact the fairy tales show the children teleology of the hero. they see that all he does is done in order to be good, to do good. he gains the princess because it is his destiny, his absolute and ultimate destination and drive that is behind all his motives. he does not consider any other possibility than doing good. this is really benefitial for the little children. they are shown that all their mind should be preocupied with one aim. concretely, the aim may be anything, abstractely and more generally the entelechy of mankind is ultimate good. this is very hard to define yet in fairy tales it is quite clear what good and evil is. on one hand we should look to fairy tales for inspiration what is good and evil, on the other we should not be misled by easy solutions. in reality noone is absolute evil as in fairy tales, noone must be killed, there is no pure evil and no pure good. our motives should be driven by mercy, compassion, solidarity, humbleness, love for others, but are not these terms only empty shells sometimes? it seems to me that the ability to define the above mentioned denotations of ways of life is very subjective. the world is always more complex than the words we use for it. let us not get dismal, let us get inspired because in words there is the potentian for either evil or good. good is what is absolutely beautiful and which is worth looking for, although we should not get blinded by the vision that we may reach it, yet we should strive to do so.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

How to attract young to social sphere

How to attract young to social sphere
I have been thinking latele about the way how to attract young people to the profession I do-social sphere where people help other people not so much endowed with practical qualities but rather some other personal traits that todays society does not value so much. I would try to attract young ones to do this kind of job due to the fact that it is something that the mainstream society does not value so much, that would make them feel special in a way. society of today values capitalism, consumerism, money, high effectifity, gdp and such things. people with mental disabilities are endowed with different things which unfortunately do not fit so much into todays perception of quality living. capitalism and consumerism respectively need us to buy and consume. the system and the few rich people need to stick to their capital and therefore they do not want us to think about it too much. they give us only what is necessary, food and games. bread and circuses. young people may be in an opposition to this idea by supporting people with mental handicap. people that are not able to be quick and effective, they are basically useless for the style of economy we have now, yet they have other different abilities-difabilites, a beautiful word I learned from a person very close to my heart, shows that being different for what is today required does not mean being deffective. ineffectivness is not deffectivness. it is only effectivness in a different area. another thing that people with mental handicap can teach us is to slow down. these people are focused not on speed but rather on what they do at this particular moment. this is another area that we should focus on. today we are told that time is money. times definitely is money, but is money everything? that is what the powers that be do not want us to think about. money is indispensable but how much of it? is not too much money making us uncomfortable? and what is too much? this must be answered individually but let us bear in mind that having more things does not mean being more happy. the focus on present moment is another thing that people with mental disabilities are more able than we are. it seems to me that we are told to think about future. this is perfectly legitimate argument, but do not we forget about the present day because of the amoung of worries about tomorrow? I do not want to sound nihilistic but tomorrow may not come and today may be the last time of our life. naturally, it would not be possible to live only in the present moment without thinking about tomorrow but I think that a deeper focus on the present moment would not make anyone harm. after all, I do not want to uphold people with mental disabilites as better than the mainstream society. not at all. they are all people as we all are, people are not better or worse, only what we do may be good or evil. to this we may be have these gifts or another. it all depends on what we do with the gift we have been endowed with, not on who, how or where we were born.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

what is encouragement good for

what is encouragement good for
I read an autobiography of malcolm x, an American activist for the rights of black people by Alex Haley and I came across an interesting thing there. Malcolm says that when he was at school he quite liked the teachers they had and he followed very often their advice. When thinking about which school to attend, he was advised to enter carpentry school because for a black person it was natural in the society to work in menial labour. such occupation was fit for him and he was advised to do that. nevertheless, he was more interested in law and wanted to enter college. He was not advised to do so and that formed his future life. The moral of the story is this: should the teacher support him in his wish, he would not become the well know figure not only in America but in the whole world. from this stems the notion that support may not always be benefitial for us. it is much more the personal experience and experiences that form our way in life. Malcolm would be a good lawyer and world would miss such a great person in the fight for equality. maybe it is good to be inspired and see in the barriers and inhibitions in or way through life also merits and advantages, or make the things that we consider problematic for us useful and inspiring. without the need to climb over barriers we would not be such developed society as we are today


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

reaching a perfect society

reaching a perfect society
I read an interview with a journalist about the state of a state that is highly corrupted and dys-functional. The reporter talked about a perfect society with abstract words and sentences. it all made sense and it would be really very beautiful to live in a perfect society, but reality is different. the truth is that a perfect society is not a vision, it is an illusion. maybe an allusion to what we would want the society to be like. in fact, as Marx did not know but probably subconsciously conjectured, the society that would be ideal is an utopia. on one hand, I think that it is terribly important to have ideals and ideas to which we look to, which we have as some kind of aim. but we also need a highground where we can start building these dreams. in fact, I do not like calling a perfect society a dream, because it is a false dream. It seems to me much more prudent to accept that society and people within it (people equals society and vica versa) will not and shall not be perfect in anystage of developmene. the acceptance that we should not be reaching an utopia but rather maintaining current state of things seems as a key to me. let us not think that once we shall reach a perfect state. let us admit, that maintaing what we have today is imperfect and yet worth striving for, improving and living. Marxist believe that people are capable of living freely and yet equally among themselves. I also believe that people are capable of wonderful feats, yet I do not think that it is possible to impose institutionally precepts upon them based on which they should live. moral code is within each individual and we should lead the people to improving ones moral code with the explanation why, not by force, by rules and imperatives. I like thinking about people as ultimately deep beings that are capable of sacrifice for common good and I like to think that they (we) should do. nevertheless, acceptance that such state is not something static, not something that we shall once reach but rather a neverending story which our fails notwistanding is worth reaching and working on is the philosophy that we as society should adapt. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. (Romans 15:1).


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

humans vs animals

humans vs animals
I attended a course about leadership yesterday and the lector compared people to horses many times. The paralel was quite clear. a new horse when emerging in a flock of other horses is usually ostracized. the other horses want to keep their position and want basically not exactly to get rid of him but make him subdued. the horse is either submissive and gives up or shows a strength of personality and may even become their leader. the lector says that it is the same with people. I understand the metaphor but I do not think that people should act like animals. I believe that when a new member comes into a team, then the rest of the team naturally shows that they know how things go and so but nevertheless can also be amiable and not see the new member as a threat to their position but can even help him to become higher in the hierarchy, if his or hers abilities are to become a leading member of the team. I would like to believe that people may give up their ego in order to fight for our couse-cosa nostra or bonum comune-good for all if you like. It is good to do good just for goods sake. one does not need a reason to do good because doing good does not need a reason. it is the only thing where we do not need to be looking for a reason because it is the reason in itself. basically, doing good is the only purpose we are here, that is why it does not and cannot have any other reason or purpose of existence. the leader of the team when accepting a new member should help his acclimatization as much as possible and I even think that one should not consider him as a predestined member of certain area but should want to grow his potential because the one may even be a better leader than the leader himself. I see that this is exactly the animal behaviour. animals want to keep their position as alpha male, beta, gamma and so on because it fits them in the hierarchy. humans on the other hand are capable of thinking behind the horizon of their needs and should grow their potantial not in only their needs but in needs of the whole. the team as a whole functions the best once the people do what they are good at and not what they want to do. if the leader sees that some other member of the society is better in some things, he may either use him and be inspired by him or may even want replace himself by him. this approach is absolutely anti ego which I consider very good for all our relationships and also the relationship with onself. I think that to understand that my needs and ego if forgotten are much better is vital in our existence. To overcome ones shadow, to step behind it is the trait of a mature personality that matters the most.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard