RSS Feed

Posts Tagged ‘oh’

  1. Hero Worship

    April 7, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    While researching for my persuasive essay this past weekend, I came across this term several times – “hero worship.” I am attempting to persuade education reformers and teachers alike to implement philosophy into the public school (as in pre-higher education) curriculum for my paper; however, while I chose not to address it directly in my paper, I would like to address it here because it really is a fascinating, yet controversial idea.

    Simply put, “hero worship” is the idea that studying certain people (philosophers, in this case) causes one to idolize them and their thoughts and become restricted from development on those ideas. For example, believers of hero worship would say that if I study Plato in-depth, I am likely to take what he writes as wise and true so that I will not attempt to disagree with him and will therefore be stunting my own philosophical prowess by worshipping the works of Plato. In general, I disagree, though there are some valid concerns here, as well.

    As for the valid ideas within hero worship, it makes logical sense that if a person becomes too obsessed with one certain idea of way of thinking, it tends to constrict their perspective. This can be seen in politics. Generally (as a stereotype), Democrats watch MSNBC, while Republicans watch FOX. The obvious bias towards either end of the political spectrum concurs with the general audience of the network, which is arguably detrimental to all audience members involved. A liberal who is continuously exposed to his or her own ideas over and over again will become more solidified in those beliefs and be less likely to consider any conservative ideas. The converse is true for conservatives.

    The danger certainly exists that a person who studies only one philosopher or way of thinking will be less likely to be consider other perspectives; however, I would argue that this is extremely rare. Most who study philosophy study both a breadth and depth of philosophers so as to broaden their perspective and not get too caught up in a certain idea. While the concern of hero worship makes logic sense, the phenomenon addresses a very rare danger, and therefore is limited in its applicability and by extension, its validity.

    In my opinion, the idea of hero worship is extremely negative and could have negative effects on society if accepted at face-value. Studying philosophers or any specific academic concentration is extremely important. We generally learn the broad history of the field so that we can build upon past and present ideas to promote progress beyond what has been done. In order for progress to occur, we must first recognize previous ways of thinking so that we understand why a field of study exists as it currently does. Without that basis, we would merely rehash old ideas and digress back into the past. Is this really what we want? Probably not.

    It seems to me that this idea of hero worship, though valid in a limited scope, is overall a hollow argument that would promote laziness and regression in today’s society.

    Tell me what you think!

    That’s all for now. Stay fly, and goodbye!

    -Dan


  2. Philosophy in Public Schools

    April 7, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    I came across an interesting article the other day that revealed a misconception I had about public education in the United States. The Huffington Post article cites a study done by the University of Southern California (USC) which found that the United States is the “clear leader in spending-per-student.” At first, I was baffled by the fact that the U.S. still has a weaker public education system than many other prominent nation with such high amounts of money being spent per student. However, it makes sense if you consider that the quality of the education we receive in the U.S. does not meet the standards of many other nations throughout the world.

    We have been discussing ways of improving the quality of education in the U.S. throughout this semester, and one of the main reform efforts we have discussed is the de-standardization of public education. I would like to take this a step further and assert that we must not only free ourselves from stringent standardized guidelines, but we must also implement ways of broadening the minds of students so as to truly break away from the regurgitation mentality. Therefore, as many education reformers have suggested, I support the implementation of philosophy in public schools, namely middle or high schools.

    The prospect of injecting philosophy into the curriculums of public schools below the level of higher education is extremely controversial, and I certainly realize this. Critics definitely have some valuable concerns, yet some are factually inaccurate. For one, opponents state that philosophy is too academic and esoteric in nature to be valued by the every-day person. This is the farthest from the truth, and the argument against this assertion follows that of the value of history (“How can we learn from our mistakes without studying the mistakes of the past?”). Philosophy is simply the “love of wisdom,” and similarly, how can we understand where we are today and where we are going in the future without first realizing the thinking that brought about societies institutions and ways of conventional thinking.

    Another argument lies in the assertion that philosophy in public schools could cause children to question their religion. Maybe this is just me, but I find this argument to be so fundamentally flawed that it doesn’t really serve as a valid argument at all. Religion has been tested for thousands of years, yet it continues to endure despite individual questioning. More importantly, though, religious indoctrination without the ability to ask questions is not okay, in my opinion. Granted, I understand that parents have raised their children a certain way, and they certainly have a right to do so; however, philosophy and religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are numerous philosophers who practice a diverse array of religions from. There exists this conception that those who study philosophy lose their faith and become atheists. Philosophy helps people to explore all possible realms of thought with an open mind so as to promote a more universal perspective, but that does not mean that they do not retain their own faith. Oftentimes, the study of philosophy strengthens an individual’s faith in their religion because he or she is able to understand other ways of thought and morality and choose what they agree with. This is a lot more meaningful than religious indoctrination, in my opinion.

    Lastly, there always remains the idea that philosophy may be valuable to study, yet it is not as essential as the rest of the academic subjects. Therefore, it is left out of curriculums in high schools because there is simply not “enough room” for it. However, I would argue that philosophy is potentially even more valuable than some subjects in school because it introduces an entirely new concept into public education – free thought. Currently, almost all academic subjects before higher education are knowledge-based. Although some would argue that english or literature classes are more interpretive than empirical, from my own experience, this is only partially true. In my AP literature class, our grades were often based upon regurgitation of given themes of short stories or detailing events from a novel, which, I would argue, borders on memorization and regurgitation. Even so, philosophy would allow students to think for themselves and critically consider various perspectives on life, death, and other more tangible applications to society. To me, it is more important for students to develop critical thinking skills, logic, and a more broadened perspective so as to promote both themselves as individuals and the improvement of society.

    Here is the article I discussed at the start of this post. Give it a read!

    “It Lies Within: The Key to Education Reform”

    That’s all for now! Stay fly and goodbye!

    -Dan


  3. Equality in Public Education: What are some options?

    February 28, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    It comes as no surprise that our nation’s schools are unequal in terms of quality of facilities, teachers, and other resources. Just like every aspect of society, education is not really equal, although it certainly aims to be just so. Paul C. Gorski of George Mason University puts it well:

    “Education is the great equalizer. That’s what I heard growing up, the son of a mother from poor Appalachian stock and a father from middle class Detroit. If you work hard, do well in school, and follow the rules, you can be anything you want to be. It’s a fantastic idea. How remarkable it would be if only it were true…”

    The truth is that the national government plays a relatively small role in funding public primary and secondary education in comparison to state and local governments. The national government, for a variety of reasons, I am sure, has decided not to increase its contribution to schools in need, at least not to the necessary degree of inducing actual equality in primary and secondary schools across the nation. The government places higher value on other pillars of society, which is understandable given the variety of tasks with which the government is charged.

    However, education does not exemplify equality of opportunity, nor does it entail equality of quality itself, and this is a problem. Recognizing the problem, though, is the easy part. It is solving the problem that is the tricky part. Of course, one solution would be to galvanize the government into valuing education to a higher degree. If the federal government valued education more so than other pillars of society, it would undoubtedly receive more money. Persuading the government to change its values is difficult and painstaking, but the end result could be worth it in terms of the betterment of public education, as well as the improvement of public education.

    Realistically, the government could take hundreds of years to be persuaded into changing its priorities, so other solutions must also coincide with the large-scale reform movement. Smaller solutions, such as fundraising, community awareness, and other such small-scale aid could help tremendously to improve the state of public education, especially in poorer areas, such as slums in some cities, as well as underprivileged rural areas. Community awareness, for example, could cause members of the local community to raise money or otherwise support the improvement of a particular institution of public education within the confines of the specific locality. Awareness is always the first step towards action, and it is the crucial first step in this process,  especially.

    Another more controversial route to go would be distributing wealth across the nation more equally so as to promote equal means of education. This could entail national taxes that raise money for the primary goal of improving schools that are not to the standards of a high level of educational instruction and experience. There are other ways of distributing wealth more evenly, but this borders on socialism, a concept which most Americans fear and disdain.

    One of the easiest and most effective ways to improve public education, especially in the primary and secondary phase, would be to place a higher value on quality teachers. Teachers are almost undoubtably the basis for any child’s education. However, teachers in the United States are paid sparingly in relation to other careers such as those in the medical, business, or engineering fields. This is an unfortunate reality of our society, but it certainly CAN be remedied. If teachers were paid more and generally recognized more so for their role in shaping the future of our society, existing teachers would be more inspired to teach and those considering a career in teaching would potentially see more value in the field. Of course, increasing teacher salary would require more money from local, state, and federal governments, alike, which is certainly a concern to this approach. However, I would argue that investing in teachers in probably the most essential investment possible in the context of public education simply because teachers inspire, influence, and shape the future members of our society. They hold such an important role that often goes unnoticed by government and other citizens alike.

    All in all, there are certainly a variety of possibilities to remedying the lack of equality in public education, though all have both pros and cons.

    That’s all for now! Stay fly, and goodbye.

    -Dan

     

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/17/public-educations-biggest-problem-keeps-getting-worse/

     


  4. Questioning

    February 28, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    As the clock strikes 3:00 AM here in the Atherton study lounge, my mind wanders freely and probably somewhat irrationally. I have decided to take a brief hiatus from discussing and synthesizing the arguments of prominent philosophers in order to articulate some of my own musings. I think that this is an essential part of philosophy, more so than any other. Of course, it is important to study the ideas of others in order to gain some perspective, but ultimately each person must figure out what he or she believes and actively think and question all aspects of the world. So now, I shall let my somewhat sleep-deprived mind roam free to really think about whatever it decides to construct.

    So something that I have recently been tossing around in my mind is the idea of questioning, specifically what questioning is and whether or not it is important. Whether you are asking a question about a homework problem and questioning the purpose of life, you are always seeking to learn something new or achieve some decisive state of wisdom. We question all of our actions, the actions of others, and sometimes we even question why we are questioning those actions. I would like to try to argue both sides of the issue and really get to the root of whether or not questioning is valuable at all.

    First for the pro-questioning standpoint. Questioning is the reason for studying philosophy. Actively questioning the status quo of society or really any construct of perception opens the mind up to new ways of thinking. For example, I think of biology, which tells us that cells are the basic components of living things. That makes sense through our perception as humans, but what if we consider the possibility that we are the “cells” of some other greater entity that we are unaware of. Biological cells seem to function to maintain viability for themselves while also serving the greater purpose of composing the human being. Who is to say that we humans are not self-fulfilling creatures that serve some greater purpose that we know nothing about? That cannot now, nor ever be proven to be false by any scientific means. We are limited by our perception of reality, and nothing can circumvent that sad truth. The value in asking questions like these and thinking about things that seem unconventional is simply that it helps the mind to exercise and make new connections that make for a more open-minded, thoughtful person.

    My own counterargument to that preceding paragraph is simply that questioning serves no real, concrete, quantifiable purpose. Sure, expanding our minds sounds attractive to us, but that is not necessarily a valuable happening anyway. While questioning leads to new questions and expanded ideas, there is no actual destination that questioning can possibly reach. Because we are limited by are perception, questioning can be frustrating, as it leads nowhere in the end. As we continue to explore the possibilities of reality that our minds come up with, we are unable to actually reach any sort of answer, and we are almost always left with more questions than we started with. Therefore, should we even try to question anything because our efforts are fruitless nevertheless? That is certainly possible, in my opinion. In terms of the question of humans acting as “cells” of a greater being, I could counter-argue that this type of thinking has no purpose because we can never actually validate that assertion. Maybe we should just focus on what we know and experience around us and work within the confines of society and our own level of perception. Maybe that is more useful than questioning anything at all.

    Well, there you have it – my arguments for and against questioning reality. Decide for yourself which argument resonates more with you. Or better yet, don’t. Think of your own arguments, and try to develop your own internal philosophical conflicts. It can be fun!

     

    That’s all for now. Stay fly, and goodbye!

    -Dan


  5. The Walker’s Dilemma: An Overanalysis of Listening to Music While Walking About

    October 24, 2013 by Daniel Friedland

    So far in this blog, I have talked a lot about different genres and “sub-genres” of music. Therefore, to change it up a bit, I have decided to analyze (or overanalyze, if you will) a “musical” trend I have seen here on campus that got me thinking. My observation is simply the fact that many students walk around campus with headphones in their ears. This seems simple and harmless enough, right? Wrong. Have you ever stopped to think about why people do this or what it achieves? I would like to discuss my rationale regarding what I have come to call “The Walker’s Dilemma.”

    Listening to music is a way for the listener to experience an idea or emotion, but to people who walk around with headphones, it acts as a mere distraction. Is it a good thing to have a distraction from reality, even if it is just during a walk from one class to the next? I would argue that the answer goes both ways.

    Whether it be taking the listener’s mind off of a difficult exam he or she just finished or simply giving the listener’s mind something to engage in while walking around alone, listening to music while walking around campus distracts us from what happens in our immediate environment. Now I will not bore you with the safety hazards of walking with headphones in your ears, but they certainly exist. Plus, it makes you unapproachable because people see you as too busy to converse with or even greet. The most dreadful consequence of all is the fact that we are not able to clearly see, hear, and experience the scenery and people around us.

    Now for the positives. Sometimes we need a distraction from reality, or at least something that occupies our bored or exhausted minds. I must admit that I wear headphones some of the time when walking between classes, and I see it as sort of therapeutic. It allows the mind to reset itself and relax (assuming you do not listen to heavy metal). Also, it enables us to control our mood and mindset, which can be good thing at times. For example, listening to exciting “pump-up” music to boost your confidence before an exam can work wonders.

    Overall, there are valid benefits and detriments to wearing headphones while walking around, but I must say that for the most part, it is better to walk around with your ears wide open to the sounds of the world. You never know what you might hear or see. Some of the best experiences in life come when we least expect them, so why not take out those headphones once in a while and see what the world has to offer?

    Stay fly and goodbye!

     

    -Dan

     


  6. Analysis of “We Did Stop” from SNL

    October 18, 2013 by Daniel Friedland

    SNL Parody – We Did Stop

    Although the government shutdown is over, it lasted long enough for some very provocative propaganda to rise to prominence in the media. I witnessed this spectacle while watching Saturday Night Live two weeks ago. Miley Cyrus helps the cast of SNL to make a statement about the inefficiency of the government in a hilarious way. However, even though it seems like a mere parody video, “We Did Stop” contains plenty of rhetoric, as well as civically engages us by indirectly raising questions about the government and its status.

    “We Did Stop” is clearly a parody of Miley Cyrus’ “We Can’t Stop” song and music video, and while making a mockery of the stagnant United States government may be rather insensitive, it serves to bring awareness to a civic issue and place the blame. The video targets the Republican Party, blaming it for the government shutdown. Portraying John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann as manipulative, careless, and ridiculous figures discredits their images. The part towards the end of the video when “Boehner” and “Bachmann” are throwing money at “Uncle Sam” is especially effective because it subtly  introduces the generalization that the Republicans as a whole are rich, selfish, and only care about their own assets (not the state of the government). The video actually diminishes the ethos of the Republican party, which is an underhanded, backwards ethos appeal.

    The video also employs a logos appeal in the form of the lyrics. At the very beginning of the video, the deep voice says “This is our house, we can do what we want . . . vote how we want, defund how we want.” While this line is meant to be humorous and set the stage for the rest of the song, it impacts the viewer in a much more serious way. The line introduces the idea that the Republican party does control the house (of Representatives). They have voted against the budget bill and want to defund Obamacare. Regardless of the manner in which these facts or given, there exists some logical truth to them. They make the viewer of the video believe that the Republican party directly caused the government shutdown by voting against the budget bill and demanding that Obamacare be defunded. These facts are true; however, the makers of the video make it seem like the cause of the government shutdown lies solely in the Republican party, which is certainly a heavily left-leaning bias.

    “We Did Stop” brings awareness to the government shutdown and its supposed cause through the use of humorous, shocking images, as well as cleverly written lyrics. Rhetoric is all around us, even in comedy sketches. Whether or not “We Did Stop” accurately portrays the Republican Party and its role in the government shutdown, it certainly leaves an impression through its intelligent use rhetorical devices.

     

    Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1bdoufPt0

     

    Works Cited

    We Did Stop – SNL Highlight. 2013. Video. NBC. YouTube, New York, New York. Web. 18 Oct 2013.


  7. Chamber Music: Musical Intimacy

    October 18, 2013 by Daniel Friedland

    I have been talking about classical music a lot lately, but I am going to do it again. I am in a string quartet here on campus, and we have just started looking through repertoire, which allows us to listen to a whole variety of styles within classical music. We ended up choosing two very different pieces, one romantic and one which is more classical (fundamental stuff, like Mozart, Beethoven, etc.). The beauty of chamber music is that it explores the different aspects of classical music in a whole new way.

    The experience of playing in a chamber group lies somewhere in the realm between soloing and playing in an orchestra. Chamber music is similar to an orchestra in that a group of musicians are working together and playing different parts in order to portray some musical idea. The difference is that playing with, say, 3 other people, rather than 90 other people is that one is able to  listen more closely to the individual parts and work off of each other more “intimately” than would be possible in a full orchestra. On the other end of the spectrum, chamber music is similar to soloing in that one is playing his or her part alone and exposed. There is no one else there to cover up mistakes or discrepancies.

    With fewer people, the setting is perhaps higher-pressure, but it is also more musically intimate. Players make eye contact with each other, cue their entrances, and coordinate musical ideas through sound and movement. These characteristics of chamber music are what make it so fun and rewarding, yet also difficult at the same time. It is tough to be engaged with everyone in the group while focusing on your own self-expression at the same time. Even so, I find chamber music to be extremely exciting, and I play it whenever I can.

     

    Here are some videos / recordings of the pieces my quartet will be playing this semester. Take a listen and see what you think!

     

    Grieg – String Quartet Op. 27 in g minor – Movement 1 (part 1)

    Grieg – String Quartet Op. 27 in g minor – Movement 1 (part 2)

    If you only want to listen to one part, watch the last 30 seconds or so of part 2. They even use a fan to blow their music away. How awesome!

     

    Mendelssohn – String Quartet No. 2 in a minor, Op. 13

     

    I hope you enjoyed the clips! Stay fly and goodbye!

    -Dan

     

    Video URLs:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlS0QgOHiqM (Grieg Part 1)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qj-W8i63fI (Grieg Part 2)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4yzZy-9Ps (Mendelssohn #2)

     

     


  8. A comparison: Instrumental vs. A Capella

    October 10, 2013 by Daniel Friedland

    We know music in a variety of forms, but most songs today that play on the radio are formed by an instrumental and voice line. There are, as we know other forms of music, but it just so happens that this combination of an instrument and voice line predominates in current musical culture. Now, if we strip down these songs to their most basic forms, we get what is known as the  instrumental and A Capella. Musical instruments or any other sound other than voice is considered instrumental, and any sound produced by the voice is A Capella. While these two forms are normally seen together, there are certainly some good instrumental songs and pieces, as well as A Capella songs and pieces.

    Here is an instrumental song that stands really well on its own. The guitar is the only sound (besides the talking voices in the background), and it plays the melody as well as an accompaniment  at the same time, making for an interesting piece of music.

    Alt-J – Interlude II

    Because instruments and synthetic sounds can play two or melody lines it a time, it is easier for an instrument to play an engaging piece than it would be for a singer (as a generalization). This is especially evident in pop songs because the voice relies a lot on the instrumental for creating interest in the melody line. I go to my scapegoat pop artist, T-Swift, to show us just how weak a single vocal line can be.

    T-Swift – You Belong With Me

    Not all A Capella is uninteresting, though. In fact, a lot of it is really engaging to the listener because voices can make lots of sounds that mirror percussion and other instruments. Take a listen to this A Capella version of Paradise by Coldplay. The singer uses his voice in different ways to produce different sounds that come together to sounds extremely similar to the actual song.

    Cover of Coldplay’s Paradise

    In the end, voice and instrumental melodies are very similar for the simple reason that the voice is an instrument. While the voice can only produce one melody line at a time, the combination of voices can add a really interesting twist to a song. It is the same way with instruments. Solo pieces are nice to listen to, but accompaniment and the inter-workings of a variety of instruments makes for a more exciting piece of music.

    That’s all for now. Stay fly, and goodbye!

    -Dan

     

    Video URLs:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbQ_y0dO4js (Interlude 2)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ZXoT9u5og (You Belong With Me)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2YSo8Z_-a4 (Paradise Cover)

     

     

     

     


Skip to toolbar