One of two unknown writers from the fantasy anthology Legends II, I decided to pick up the Symphony of the Ages series which Haydon wrote. The first book is entitled Rhapsody, named after one of the main characters in the novel. It doesn't take much imagination what the theme of the seris is about, especially when you get words like "symphony" and "rhapsody". So, how does Haydon fuse elements of music and fantasy, and is she successful?
The novel opens with a prophecy (an ancient trope in fantasy) and actually had an interesting prologue involving time travel and manipulation. However, as I read on, I feared that the book will descend into the stereotypical plot a lot of fantasy stories fall prey to. And to make a long story short, it did. Haydon follows all the stereotypical techniques of most fantasy novels, inserting prophecy, destiny, ancient evil, magic, and even romance into the mix. If you're looking for a groundbreaking fantasy novel, this isn't it.
Not that the book doesn't have its own share of originality. As I mentioned earlier, Haydon weaves the theme of music and song into the formula. It was interesting at the start but later on, the music theme feels too contrived. I mean there was a portion when Rhapsody and her companions found a secret passage with a puzzle. And guess what, the puzzle involved musical notes, when it really didn't make much sense (at least to me). And if you're looking for melodious interweaving of text, well, this isn't it. You're probably better off with the likes of Patricia McKillip. Haydon though does have some good lines and gorgeous descriptions along the lines of Jordan narration, but it's nothing too spectacular or anything I haven't seen before.
Character development is quite okay. You have the stereotypical naive protagonist who wields great power, the skeptical anti-hero, and a firbolg general with a British accent. They're actually quite okay, although I'm more fascinated with their "coolness" factor more than their original personality.
At a certain point though, the book degenerates into something that a couple of fantasy writers like Eddings and Feist is prone to using, namely that of giving the main characters too much of an edge when it comes to planning and everything seems to fall into place.
Thankfully, there's plot although by the end of the novel, you still have a lot of unanswered questions. Despite the length of the book, there's still a longing for more, since the reader catches only a glimpse of the setting and a hint of the adventures of the characters. I'm curious enough not to regret purchasing the other books in the series, although a more critical reader might want to pass on this series.
Ultimately, Haydon is more or less the typical mass-market fantasy fanfare. It's good mass-market fantasy but it's not breathtaking. It's slightly a step above being a book of guilty pleasures but don't kid yourself thinking that this book is a must-read. If you need some entertainment (nothing too simple but nothing too complicated either), this is probably it. The book shows potential, but it was never developed in the first book. Still, Rhapsody is better than a lot of fantasy I've read in quite awhile and might be a fantasy book I'd recommend to others if they want romance and intrigue.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Friday, February 11, 2005
Emotional Rewards
Let me ask you a question. What do you want? Most likely, your answer will be one from the following list: riches, health, independence, a better world (i.e. developing a cure for aids, ending world hunger, etc.), spreading your faith, popularity, success (whatever that may be for you), or happiness. They're diverse answers coming from diverse motives, or so we think. We're all human beings and no matter how much we might try to suppress it or deny it, we have emotions. And in the bigger picture, it's emotion that fuels our desires.
For example, let's take riches. Do you think you really want wealth? Ultimately, a person's desire for wealth is rooted in emotion. For example, think of your dream job. Most likely, it's one of two things: either it pays well, or it's emotionally rewarding. The latter merely proves my theory. If you chose the former, well, when you think about it, you want a high-paying job because of the money it can give you. And money in itself is actually worthless. It's only when you spend it does it have value (I mean there’s really no difference between a person who has no money and a person who’s not willing to spend his or her money, except perhaps for the psychological confidence the latter has). When we spend for something, we feel happiness because we were able to obtain it. I mean when you purchase your Ferrari or your house and lot, you bought it because doing so gives you a positive emotion. And of course, when you cherish whatever you bought, that’s emotion again. My point? The goal of obtaining riches is merely the means to an end, and the end, of course, is personal happiness.
So let’s tackle health. Let’s say you want to live longer. What’s life anyway? For each person, their life has a different and unique meaning, but one thing you can’t deny is that they’ll have experiences (both good and bad ones). And whenever we experience something, we always have a reaction thanks to our emotions. More often than not, we want to go on living because of the pleasant emotions we’re capable of feeling. I mean why do some people want to commit suicide? Because most of their experiences are unpleasant. If you take away their negative emotions, they might want to go on living. Another aspect of health is having a better body. There could be several reasons for this, ranging from wanting to impress other people or simply to be able to do more stuff (such as the ability to carry heavier weights or to run faster). What you might not realize is that the end product of working out (or dieting) is not just developing your body but developing your confidence. I mean when you have a great body to impress other people with, you can’t help but feel proud of yourself. The same goes when you’re able to do more, whether it’s due to your bulging muscles or your agile reflexes. People who work out tend to have more confidence in themselves than those who don’t. It’s an emotional reward more than it is a development of your physique. No one works out for the sake of doing so; there’s always a drive, an inner need for them to do so (and let’s face it, working out requires effort and discipline; without your incentive, you’d simply stop).
Independence is also closely tied to working out. Why do we want to be independent? Because of the options it gives us. I mean when you’re living with your parents, for example, there are some things you’re not capable of doing. The same goes when you’re not financially independent, emotionally independent (i.e. when you need the approval of others), or physically independent (in the case of those with physical disabilities). What happens when you’re independent? You have more confidence in yourself, you know that you’re capable of doing this and that on your own. Achievement becomes something you treasure more because you know you did it through your own efforts alone. I mean there are children of rich parents who move out of their comfortable homes to strike out on their own. Living the independent life is far from cozy yet when they’re presented with the opportunity to go back home, they don’t always take it. Why? It’s obviously not because of the finances because the financially smart thing to do would be to move back in with their parents. But why do they live alone? Because of the emotional satisfaction they get of being “free”, or not depending on someone else. It’s harder, but it’s definitely more emotionally rewarding. Also, former president of the Philippines Manuel Quezon said “It is better to live in a government run like hell by Filipinos than living in a government run like heaven by the Americans." It’s far from the most logical thing to say but hey, it’s emotion that drives people.
Wishing for a better world is usually attributed to humanitarian acts. But honestly, why do we wish for a better world? I mean more often than not, it’s not for our benefit but for others. When you want to end world hunger, it’s not because you yourself are suffering from hunger, but rather you witness other people suffering because of it. We basically empathize with those people who are suffering. We want them to be rid of the unpleasantness in their lives, be it sickness, poverty, or some other ailment. We want them to be happy. And when they’re happy, we’re happy too. Happiness is contagious after all. Or maybe you don’t have empathy. You just want to take credit for solving an epidemic that plagues the world. It’s because of pride. Either way, your motivations are driven by emotion. People don’t go out looking for solutions to problems that don’t exist: we already have our own share of “unsolvable problems”. We want to solve them, either to help other people out or to boost our own ego. Either way, you can’t take the emotional factor out. Just because you get something out of helping other people doesn’t mean you’re selfish. I mean look at Jesus Christ; we can’t really say he came to save the world for the sake of doing so. He did it because he had one important emotion: love. Or I personally, I don’t help other people out just for the sake of doing so. I have ulterior motives and actually get something in return for my efforts. What are they? Well, I either get to befriend the person (or deepen our friendship), or I simply see them smile and lighten their burden. Having an agenda isn’t wrong. Having a selfish agenda is. But in either case, it’s still driven by a desire to appease our emotions.
Perhaps the same can be said with spreading our faith. I mean most religions believe that they’re the one true religion, and everyone else is more or less damned. And obviously, our innate altruistic natures don’t want other people to be damned, at least not our friends and loved ones. So we make it our mission to spread our faith as much as we can. But why do we do so? Much like wishing for a better world, it’s to help other people, or at least we perceive it be so. And the underlying reason? Well, we all don’t want to be alone in the world. I mean even Heaven or Paradise or Nirvana wouldn’t be so great if you were the only one living in it. Moreover, what’s the best telltale sign of a serious believer? Well, it’s obviously their belief and passion. When you’re vehement about something, people say that you have faith. But ultimately, faith is an emotion just as its opposite, doubt, is. I can only rationalize religion up to a certain point. After that, the rest depends on belief. And you can never remove emotion from that equation.
Popularity is perhaps one of the easiest to defend. Why do people want to be popular? On a certain level, people who crave for popularity are insecure about themselves. They look for signs from other people. When you’re popular, you’re happy. When you’re not, you’re sad. We all know we can’t please everybody yet we continue to try to do so. The best reward we can get from popularity is when we get the approval of a lot of people. It’s not a financial reward but an emotional reward. It strokes our egos, it makes us more confident about who we are. It makes us feel loved (irregardless of whether we truly are loved or not), it creates artificial happiness in some people. Ultimately, popularity is a competition on who can elicit emotion from other people. If you have more charisma, more beauty, and more confidence, the easier it is for you to sway people in your favor. But similarly, when your popularity goes down, so does your charisma, your beauty, and your confidence. It’s all a matter of perception, after all, and no one is totally unbiased as to not let their emotions cloud their judgment.
As for success, what is success? It’s probably one or all of the things mentioned above. But ultimately, success can be summed up as achieving our goal. Ever heard of the cliché statement it’s not the destination that matters but the journey? We go back to experience, to emotions. During the journey, we’re bombarded with all sorts of emotions, both good and bad. Yet we sustain ourselves from the negative emotions by keeping our goal in sight. And once we’ve attained our goal, we nurture two things: one is we nurture our confidence, since after the arduous journey, we succeeded in the endeavor of our choosing. The other thing we nurture is happiness. I mean since when did you hear of a person who pursued a goal that he or she thought wouldn’t have made them happy. Whatever our goals are, we all think that it will give us happiness. It’s the basis for choosing something as a goal. Success is obtaining happiness, and a byproduct of that is confidence.
Obviously, happiness is an emotion. Much like success, happiness is something abstract. The other things we perform are present merely to provide us with a means to obtain this emotion. Most of us yearn for happiness. It’s perhaps the ultimate goal, the ultimate reward any of us can receive. Unfortunately for many people, happiness is an ever-elusive emotion. Some of us know what we want but not how to obtain it, hence we feel sad and lonely. Or sometimes, we simply want to avoid pain. When we’re not in pain, that’s happiness for us. Either way, our goal is an emotional state. One isn’t simply classified as “happy” or “unhappy” but rather we’re in a constant flux of emotions, sometimes feeling happy during the good times, or feeling sad during the bad ones. I think there’s no question as to which emotion we want to be feeling. And it’s this desire that motivates us.
So what’s the point in all this? I think some people lose sight of their ultimate goal. More than the riches or the better body or a better world, what we’re actually looking for is self-contentment, an emotional reward. As human beings, we don’t desire things for themselves but rather we desire it because we’re motivated by what we feel. And of course, since we do have free will, we also exert a certain control over what we feel and what our emotions will be; it’s just a matter of acknowledging them and exerting self-control. Let’s not lose sight of who we’re really pleasing: we might rally to a cause but in truth, we’re rallying to our own sets of beliefs and emotions. If we lose sight of that, we become blinded to our own passions, and might end up losing ourselves to what we feel rather than what we should feel. Happiness, after all, is a state of mind.
For example, let's take riches. Do you think you really want wealth? Ultimately, a person's desire for wealth is rooted in emotion. For example, think of your dream job. Most likely, it's one of two things: either it pays well, or it's emotionally rewarding. The latter merely proves my theory. If you chose the former, well, when you think about it, you want a high-paying job because of the money it can give you. And money in itself is actually worthless. It's only when you spend it does it have value (I mean there’s really no difference between a person who has no money and a person who’s not willing to spend his or her money, except perhaps for the psychological confidence the latter has). When we spend for something, we feel happiness because we were able to obtain it. I mean when you purchase your Ferrari or your house and lot, you bought it because doing so gives you a positive emotion. And of course, when you cherish whatever you bought, that’s emotion again. My point? The goal of obtaining riches is merely the means to an end, and the end, of course, is personal happiness.
So let’s tackle health. Let’s say you want to live longer. What’s life anyway? For each person, their life has a different and unique meaning, but one thing you can’t deny is that they’ll have experiences (both good and bad ones). And whenever we experience something, we always have a reaction thanks to our emotions. More often than not, we want to go on living because of the pleasant emotions we’re capable of feeling. I mean why do some people want to commit suicide? Because most of their experiences are unpleasant. If you take away their negative emotions, they might want to go on living. Another aspect of health is having a better body. There could be several reasons for this, ranging from wanting to impress other people or simply to be able to do more stuff (such as the ability to carry heavier weights or to run faster). What you might not realize is that the end product of working out (or dieting) is not just developing your body but developing your confidence. I mean when you have a great body to impress other people with, you can’t help but feel proud of yourself. The same goes when you’re able to do more, whether it’s due to your bulging muscles or your agile reflexes. People who work out tend to have more confidence in themselves than those who don’t. It’s an emotional reward more than it is a development of your physique. No one works out for the sake of doing so; there’s always a drive, an inner need for them to do so (and let’s face it, working out requires effort and discipline; without your incentive, you’d simply stop).
Independence is also closely tied to working out. Why do we want to be independent? Because of the options it gives us. I mean when you’re living with your parents, for example, there are some things you’re not capable of doing. The same goes when you’re not financially independent, emotionally independent (i.e. when you need the approval of others), or physically independent (in the case of those with physical disabilities). What happens when you’re independent? You have more confidence in yourself, you know that you’re capable of doing this and that on your own. Achievement becomes something you treasure more because you know you did it through your own efforts alone. I mean there are children of rich parents who move out of their comfortable homes to strike out on their own. Living the independent life is far from cozy yet when they’re presented with the opportunity to go back home, they don’t always take it. Why? It’s obviously not because of the finances because the financially smart thing to do would be to move back in with their parents. But why do they live alone? Because of the emotional satisfaction they get of being “free”, or not depending on someone else. It’s harder, but it’s definitely more emotionally rewarding. Also, former president of the Philippines Manuel Quezon said “It is better to live in a government run like hell by Filipinos than living in a government run like heaven by the Americans." It’s far from the most logical thing to say but hey, it’s emotion that drives people.
Wishing for a better world is usually attributed to humanitarian acts. But honestly, why do we wish for a better world? I mean more often than not, it’s not for our benefit but for others. When you want to end world hunger, it’s not because you yourself are suffering from hunger, but rather you witness other people suffering because of it. We basically empathize with those people who are suffering. We want them to be rid of the unpleasantness in their lives, be it sickness, poverty, or some other ailment. We want them to be happy. And when they’re happy, we’re happy too. Happiness is contagious after all. Or maybe you don’t have empathy. You just want to take credit for solving an epidemic that plagues the world. It’s because of pride. Either way, your motivations are driven by emotion. People don’t go out looking for solutions to problems that don’t exist: we already have our own share of “unsolvable problems”. We want to solve them, either to help other people out or to boost our own ego. Either way, you can’t take the emotional factor out. Just because you get something out of helping other people doesn’t mean you’re selfish. I mean look at Jesus Christ; we can’t really say he came to save the world for the sake of doing so. He did it because he had one important emotion: love. Or I personally, I don’t help other people out just for the sake of doing so. I have ulterior motives and actually get something in return for my efforts. What are they? Well, I either get to befriend the person (or deepen our friendship), or I simply see them smile and lighten their burden. Having an agenda isn’t wrong. Having a selfish agenda is. But in either case, it’s still driven by a desire to appease our emotions.
Perhaps the same can be said with spreading our faith. I mean most religions believe that they’re the one true religion, and everyone else is more or less damned. And obviously, our innate altruistic natures don’t want other people to be damned, at least not our friends and loved ones. So we make it our mission to spread our faith as much as we can. But why do we do so? Much like wishing for a better world, it’s to help other people, or at least we perceive it be so. And the underlying reason? Well, we all don’t want to be alone in the world. I mean even Heaven or Paradise or Nirvana wouldn’t be so great if you were the only one living in it. Moreover, what’s the best telltale sign of a serious believer? Well, it’s obviously their belief and passion. When you’re vehement about something, people say that you have faith. But ultimately, faith is an emotion just as its opposite, doubt, is. I can only rationalize religion up to a certain point. After that, the rest depends on belief. And you can never remove emotion from that equation.
Popularity is perhaps one of the easiest to defend. Why do people want to be popular? On a certain level, people who crave for popularity are insecure about themselves. They look for signs from other people. When you’re popular, you’re happy. When you’re not, you’re sad. We all know we can’t please everybody yet we continue to try to do so. The best reward we can get from popularity is when we get the approval of a lot of people. It’s not a financial reward but an emotional reward. It strokes our egos, it makes us more confident about who we are. It makes us feel loved (irregardless of whether we truly are loved or not), it creates artificial happiness in some people. Ultimately, popularity is a competition on who can elicit emotion from other people. If you have more charisma, more beauty, and more confidence, the easier it is for you to sway people in your favor. But similarly, when your popularity goes down, so does your charisma, your beauty, and your confidence. It’s all a matter of perception, after all, and no one is totally unbiased as to not let their emotions cloud their judgment.
As for success, what is success? It’s probably one or all of the things mentioned above. But ultimately, success can be summed up as achieving our goal. Ever heard of the cliché statement it’s not the destination that matters but the journey? We go back to experience, to emotions. During the journey, we’re bombarded with all sorts of emotions, both good and bad. Yet we sustain ourselves from the negative emotions by keeping our goal in sight. And once we’ve attained our goal, we nurture two things: one is we nurture our confidence, since after the arduous journey, we succeeded in the endeavor of our choosing. The other thing we nurture is happiness. I mean since when did you hear of a person who pursued a goal that he or she thought wouldn’t have made them happy. Whatever our goals are, we all think that it will give us happiness. It’s the basis for choosing something as a goal. Success is obtaining happiness, and a byproduct of that is confidence.
Obviously, happiness is an emotion. Much like success, happiness is something abstract. The other things we perform are present merely to provide us with a means to obtain this emotion. Most of us yearn for happiness. It’s perhaps the ultimate goal, the ultimate reward any of us can receive. Unfortunately for many people, happiness is an ever-elusive emotion. Some of us know what we want but not how to obtain it, hence we feel sad and lonely. Or sometimes, we simply want to avoid pain. When we’re not in pain, that’s happiness for us. Either way, our goal is an emotional state. One isn’t simply classified as “happy” or “unhappy” but rather we’re in a constant flux of emotions, sometimes feeling happy during the good times, or feeling sad during the bad ones. I think there’s no question as to which emotion we want to be feeling. And it’s this desire that motivates us.
So what’s the point in all this? I think some people lose sight of their ultimate goal. More than the riches or the better body or a better world, what we’re actually looking for is self-contentment, an emotional reward. As human beings, we don’t desire things for themselves but rather we desire it because we’re motivated by what we feel. And of course, since we do have free will, we also exert a certain control over what we feel and what our emotions will be; it’s just a matter of acknowledging them and exerting self-control. Let’s not lose sight of who we’re really pleasing: we might rally to a cause but in truth, we’re rallying to our own sets of beliefs and emotions. If we lose sight of that, we become blinded to our own passions, and might end up losing ourselves to what we feel rather than what we should feel. Happiness, after all, is a state of mind.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
What It Means to be Part of a Team
We've all heard cliche statements like "no man is an island" or "man is a social being", whether it's from our teachers, movies, or books. They then associate the individual with the community and how each person has his or her own responsibilities and duties. For me, I think community is too heavy a word. True, we do belong to communities, but I feel that "communities" don't always act like communities. Rather, I'd like to go back to something more basic, namely the concept of a team.
Why a team? Well, it has a flexible definition. People usually associate teams with sports but it goes beyond that. Your class is a team. Your organization is a team. You and your coworkers are a team. Heck, your family is a team. For me, as long as you have someone else along the ride, whether it's your sibling, a best friend, or a business partner, that can potentially be a team. As long as you're not alone, a team is in existence.
There are several reasons why teams exists. Sometimes, it's just a means to socialize with each other. If you have a group of friends or a clique, that's basically what happens. Others, on the other hand, band together for a different purpose, such as a common goal. Business organizations and sports teams pretty much fall under that category. The people involved in those teams aren't necessarily friends to begin with, but they are all interested in achieving a certain dream or goal, and so they unite and pool their resources and talents in order to actualize that dream or goal. Sometimes, the dream or goal is so big that it goes beyond the people involved in the project. Many outsiders might be interested in joining that group because they believe in the concept or principle. For me, this is when a community develops. People are usually attracted to the ideology behind the community rather than the just the people behind the project. That idea that binds them need not be something so profound, but it is an idea that many people share and believe in. A country, for example, is a community united by something huge (whether it's the physical territory of the nation, what the nation stands for, or the cultural aspect of that nation, is up to debate, but no one can argue that there is something that unites people from a certain nation and makes them identify themselves with that community). Or a fan club to, say, Harry Potter, is a community as well. The concept of Harry Potter might not be as essential as the concept of a nation but it's a community nonetheless.
So what value is there in a team compared to an individual? I mean isn't it one of our values that each individual human being is important and unique? Well, I obviously can't deny that. I mean teams are made up of individuals. If individuals didn't exist in the first place, there wouldn't be a team to speak of. But it's also been my experience that a team can achieve more than an individual can. For example, take the simple reality of building a structure. If I were to build a house by myself, it would probably take me months, if not years, to actually build one. But when I'm part of a team, the house can be built faster as well as better. Because it is the fact that we are individuals that limits us: as individuals, we have a limited set of expertise and manpower. When you're part of a team, you can multiply the manpower and get a wider (and better) set of skills. I'd also like to point out that individuals are products of teams: our families raised us and that surely has had an effect on who we are. The institutions which we patronize also have an effect on us. Schools and universities are comprised of teams as well and they surely have given us education (even if its unwanted education). My religion has also shaped my beliefs and I belong to that team as well. The same goes for my occupation and any organizations I joined. Yet despite those facts, there’s usually something that stops us from truly being part of a team.
For one thing, there's pride. Most of us has this "superman" complex. We think that we can do everything, or at least achieve our dreams through our methods alone. It might be limited to a field of expertise, such as a writer thinking that he can write the great novel through his or her own efforts alone. Or an aspiring entrepreneur who thinks that an entire organization can be built from his ingenuity alone. And in a certain way, that's understandable. Everyone wants to take credit, after all. But the flaw in this thinking is that something big can be achieved from someone so small. Let's face it, as individuals, we have potential, but that potential has a limit as well. If we were part of a team, our potential can be complemented by other people's potential as well, or at the very least, things would be quicker and easier. And as mentioned earlier, we're actually part of an existing team, whether we're conscious of it or not. For example, as I'm writing this essay, I might think that this is the product of my genius alone. It's not. I'm actually part of a team. I can cite several people who inspired me to write this. There's also the fact that I'm typing this on a computer and someone had to build the computer in the first place. If I'm going to publish this, there are several teams involved in the process, whether it's the publishers, the printing press, and staff if this was going to be published in print, or my ISP provider and web host if this was going to be published on the Internet. And since I'm a Christian, I believe that God had a role in this as well. As much as I want to take full credit, I really can't. Because without the aid of those other people, this essay wouldn't be possible. So the reality of the fact is that as much as we want to take 100% credit for what we've accomplished in our lives, we can only probably take 10%. Because we really have to take into account the aid that other people have provided us and the services we are utilizing in order to accomplish what we are undertaking. And it's simply impossible to do it alone.
Another reason might be because we're resistant to give up control. I mean if you're a parent, I'm sure you want to monitor your child 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We don't want strangers talking to our kids, especially when we think about the possible harm (both emotionally and physically) they can possibly inflict. The same goes with our goals and dreams. They're our babies, pet projects that we don't want to entrust to others because of the possible changes they can inflict. And in a certain way, that's true. Someone else's vision of things will always be different from ours, even if it's just a minor deviation. But just like the actual child who gets influenced by his or her environment, there will be good changes and bad changes. My main point is that if your team is comprised of good people, then hopefully good changes will come out on top. Of course if your team is comprised of bad people, there's a good chance that your dream or goal will transform into something horrible. For me, purity of vision is next to impossible. Because just like a parent's inability to monitor their child during their entire life, the same goes for our dreams and goals. They will be affected by the changes around us, and sometimes, letting go is for the best. A parent has to let his or her child grow up on his or her own. Our goals and visions similarly have to grow up. A long time ago, I wanted to be a policeman so that I could nab all the bad guys and gain acclaim from my peers. If my dream didn't grow, I'd probably still be hoping for the same thing. But since I've matured and grown up, I now know that the world isn't merely black and white, and instead of punishing others, perhaps the best thing one can expect from other people is for them to change for the better. I can't always bottle up my ideas. And if I'm going to fulfill that idea, it's also best to recruit the aid of other people. And honestly, when a team strives for that common goal, there are more options available.
Then there's fear. It's a natural tendency for some people, especially the insecure ones, to think that if they become a part of a team, they lose their identity. I mean if I constantly concede my wishes for the sake of other people, how can I claim to possess free will when I always allow other people to make the decisions for me? I think the keyword in team is common goal. A true team has members that strive for that common goal. Sometimes, the members must go out of their comfort zone and make sacrifices. That doesn't mean you lose your identity. I always believed that everything has a price and sacrifice is just one of the prices you pay in order to achieve your goal. Of course if it's a goal you don't want, you don't have to make that sacrifice. But if it is, then you can't accomplish it until you pay that price. It's not a loss of identity more than a willingness to pay the price. It's true though that sometimes, your own desires are repressed for the good of the team. If that's the case, the question you should ask yourself is if the team is worth it. If it is, swallow your pride and stop your whining. If it isn't, then perhaps it's time you find yourself a new team. And make no mistake, we are all part of a team. The only question is which team we'll join, and whether we'll remain there or not. The pit trap many people fall is that in their decision to "not join a team", they join the community of people who are unwilling to join any group or organization.
Of course we've all had our share of bad experiences when it comes to groups or organizations. Some didn't meet our expectations. Others made us feel that we were merely used. Not all teams exist for the benefit of each of its members. And there's also a misconception that in a team, the leader is always on top. A good team doesn't have leaders on top: they have their goal on top. Leaders lead the team but they are not 100% responsible for the success or failure of the team. The leader and the members of the team are 100% responsible for their success and failure.
I've joined many organizations in my life and one of the surprising mentalities many people have is that the question they ask from the organization is what can the organization do for them. Of course I'm not saying that potential recruits should always think of what they can do for the organization. It's actually a relationship of mutual benefit: what can I contribute to the organization, and how can I benefit from it? One of my previous organizations had a workshop. The workshop exists so that the members would get better, and they in turn would be in a better position to help the organization. Of course what happened during the workshop was that only a few members showed up. The following year, previous members wouldn't reapply because they'd claim they never got anything from the organization. Well, all I can say is obviously, they didn't get anything because they didn't volunteer. I mean when you apply for a job, you don't ask your employer what the company can do for you. There's a mutual agreement, that you do this and that work, and the company compensates you this and that way. If one of you fails in that commitment, the other party can also back out of the agreement. The same goes with joining organizations: don't expect your other team members or leaders to give you what you need to grow and achieve your goals. They're only there to present you with opportunities. If you don't take advantage of that opportunity, don't expect to get anything out of the deal. And similarly, it's also your responsibility to make that organization grow. It's easy to lay the blame on the leaders, saying that they're doing a bad job and the like. Well, if you really feel that way, then volunteer to be a leader or start something. Remember that when the organization grows, you grow too. The more opportunities your team has, the more opportunities you have. The individual and the group build on each other. When one falters, it's the responsibility of the other to help the other party, or else both of you will eventually collapse.
I wrote this essay not to belittle the efforts of individuals. As I mentioned earlier, teams are only possible because of the individuals themselves. Without unique and talented people, the team has no value. But the beauty of being part of a team, and don't make any mistake, you are part of a team whether you realize it or not, is that you are capable of significantly much more. But that's only possible if you actually take the time and the effort to participate in the team and help it achieve its goal. The team is not there merely to help you, but you're there to help the team, and the team in turn gives aid and provides you opportunities for growth.
Why a team? Well, it has a flexible definition. People usually associate teams with sports but it goes beyond that. Your class is a team. Your organization is a team. You and your coworkers are a team. Heck, your family is a team. For me, as long as you have someone else along the ride, whether it's your sibling, a best friend, or a business partner, that can potentially be a team. As long as you're not alone, a team is in existence.
There are several reasons why teams exists. Sometimes, it's just a means to socialize with each other. If you have a group of friends or a clique, that's basically what happens. Others, on the other hand, band together for a different purpose, such as a common goal. Business organizations and sports teams pretty much fall under that category. The people involved in those teams aren't necessarily friends to begin with, but they are all interested in achieving a certain dream or goal, and so they unite and pool their resources and talents in order to actualize that dream or goal. Sometimes, the dream or goal is so big that it goes beyond the people involved in the project. Many outsiders might be interested in joining that group because they believe in the concept or principle. For me, this is when a community develops. People are usually attracted to the ideology behind the community rather than the just the people behind the project. That idea that binds them need not be something so profound, but it is an idea that many people share and believe in. A country, for example, is a community united by something huge (whether it's the physical territory of the nation, what the nation stands for, or the cultural aspect of that nation, is up to debate, but no one can argue that there is something that unites people from a certain nation and makes them identify themselves with that community). Or a fan club to, say, Harry Potter, is a community as well. The concept of Harry Potter might not be as essential as the concept of a nation but it's a community nonetheless.
So what value is there in a team compared to an individual? I mean isn't it one of our values that each individual human being is important and unique? Well, I obviously can't deny that. I mean teams are made up of individuals. If individuals didn't exist in the first place, there wouldn't be a team to speak of. But it's also been my experience that a team can achieve more than an individual can. For example, take the simple reality of building a structure. If I were to build a house by myself, it would probably take me months, if not years, to actually build one. But when I'm part of a team, the house can be built faster as well as better. Because it is the fact that we are individuals that limits us: as individuals, we have a limited set of expertise and manpower. When you're part of a team, you can multiply the manpower and get a wider (and better) set of skills. I'd also like to point out that individuals are products of teams: our families raised us and that surely has had an effect on who we are. The institutions which we patronize also have an effect on us. Schools and universities are comprised of teams as well and they surely have given us education (even if its unwanted education). My religion has also shaped my beliefs and I belong to that team as well. The same goes for my occupation and any organizations I joined. Yet despite those facts, there’s usually something that stops us from truly being part of a team.
For one thing, there's pride. Most of us has this "superman" complex. We think that we can do everything, or at least achieve our dreams through our methods alone. It might be limited to a field of expertise, such as a writer thinking that he can write the great novel through his or her own efforts alone. Or an aspiring entrepreneur who thinks that an entire organization can be built from his ingenuity alone. And in a certain way, that's understandable. Everyone wants to take credit, after all. But the flaw in this thinking is that something big can be achieved from someone so small. Let's face it, as individuals, we have potential, but that potential has a limit as well. If we were part of a team, our potential can be complemented by other people's potential as well, or at the very least, things would be quicker and easier. And as mentioned earlier, we're actually part of an existing team, whether we're conscious of it or not. For example, as I'm writing this essay, I might think that this is the product of my genius alone. It's not. I'm actually part of a team. I can cite several people who inspired me to write this. There's also the fact that I'm typing this on a computer and someone had to build the computer in the first place. If I'm going to publish this, there are several teams involved in the process, whether it's the publishers, the printing press, and staff if this was going to be published in print, or my ISP provider and web host if this was going to be published on the Internet. And since I'm a Christian, I believe that God had a role in this as well. As much as I want to take full credit, I really can't. Because without the aid of those other people, this essay wouldn't be possible. So the reality of the fact is that as much as we want to take 100% credit for what we've accomplished in our lives, we can only probably take 10%. Because we really have to take into account the aid that other people have provided us and the services we are utilizing in order to accomplish what we are undertaking. And it's simply impossible to do it alone.
Another reason might be because we're resistant to give up control. I mean if you're a parent, I'm sure you want to monitor your child 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We don't want strangers talking to our kids, especially when we think about the possible harm (both emotionally and physically) they can possibly inflict. The same goes with our goals and dreams. They're our babies, pet projects that we don't want to entrust to others because of the possible changes they can inflict. And in a certain way, that's true. Someone else's vision of things will always be different from ours, even if it's just a minor deviation. But just like the actual child who gets influenced by his or her environment, there will be good changes and bad changes. My main point is that if your team is comprised of good people, then hopefully good changes will come out on top. Of course if your team is comprised of bad people, there's a good chance that your dream or goal will transform into something horrible. For me, purity of vision is next to impossible. Because just like a parent's inability to monitor their child during their entire life, the same goes for our dreams and goals. They will be affected by the changes around us, and sometimes, letting go is for the best. A parent has to let his or her child grow up on his or her own. Our goals and visions similarly have to grow up. A long time ago, I wanted to be a policeman so that I could nab all the bad guys and gain acclaim from my peers. If my dream didn't grow, I'd probably still be hoping for the same thing. But since I've matured and grown up, I now know that the world isn't merely black and white, and instead of punishing others, perhaps the best thing one can expect from other people is for them to change for the better. I can't always bottle up my ideas. And if I'm going to fulfill that idea, it's also best to recruit the aid of other people. And honestly, when a team strives for that common goal, there are more options available.
Then there's fear. It's a natural tendency for some people, especially the insecure ones, to think that if they become a part of a team, they lose their identity. I mean if I constantly concede my wishes for the sake of other people, how can I claim to possess free will when I always allow other people to make the decisions for me? I think the keyword in team is common goal. A true team has members that strive for that common goal. Sometimes, the members must go out of their comfort zone and make sacrifices. That doesn't mean you lose your identity. I always believed that everything has a price and sacrifice is just one of the prices you pay in order to achieve your goal. Of course if it's a goal you don't want, you don't have to make that sacrifice. But if it is, then you can't accomplish it until you pay that price. It's not a loss of identity more than a willingness to pay the price. It's true though that sometimes, your own desires are repressed for the good of the team. If that's the case, the question you should ask yourself is if the team is worth it. If it is, swallow your pride and stop your whining. If it isn't, then perhaps it's time you find yourself a new team. And make no mistake, we are all part of a team. The only question is which team we'll join, and whether we'll remain there or not. The pit trap many people fall is that in their decision to "not join a team", they join the community of people who are unwilling to join any group or organization.
Of course we've all had our share of bad experiences when it comes to groups or organizations. Some didn't meet our expectations. Others made us feel that we were merely used. Not all teams exist for the benefit of each of its members. And there's also a misconception that in a team, the leader is always on top. A good team doesn't have leaders on top: they have their goal on top. Leaders lead the team but they are not 100% responsible for the success or failure of the team. The leader and the members of the team are 100% responsible for their success and failure.
I've joined many organizations in my life and one of the surprising mentalities many people have is that the question they ask from the organization is what can the organization do for them. Of course I'm not saying that potential recruits should always think of what they can do for the organization. It's actually a relationship of mutual benefit: what can I contribute to the organization, and how can I benefit from it? One of my previous organizations had a workshop. The workshop exists so that the members would get better, and they in turn would be in a better position to help the organization. Of course what happened during the workshop was that only a few members showed up. The following year, previous members wouldn't reapply because they'd claim they never got anything from the organization. Well, all I can say is obviously, they didn't get anything because they didn't volunteer. I mean when you apply for a job, you don't ask your employer what the company can do for you. There's a mutual agreement, that you do this and that work, and the company compensates you this and that way. If one of you fails in that commitment, the other party can also back out of the agreement. The same goes with joining organizations: don't expect your other team members or leaders to give you what you need to grow and achieve your goals. They're only there to present you with opportunities. If you don't take advantage of that opportunity, don't expect to get anything out of the deal. And similarly, it's also your responsibility to make that organization grow. It's easy to lay the blame on the leaders, saying that they're doing a bad job and the like. Well, if you really feel that way, then volunteer to be a leader or start something. Remember that when the organization grows, you grow too. The more opportunities your team has, the more opportunities you have. The individual and the group build on each other. When one falters, it's the responsibility of the other to help the other party, or else both of you will eventually collapse.
I wrote this essay not to belittle the efforts of individuals. As I mentioned earlier, teams are only possible because of the individuals themselves. Without unique and talented people, the team has no value. But the beauty of being part of a team, and don't make any mistake, you are part of a team whether you realize it or not, is that you are capable of significantly much more. But that's only possible if you actually take the time and the effort to participate in the team and help it achieve its goal. The team is not there merely to help you, but you're there to help the team, and the team in turn gives aid and provides you opportunities for growth.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Finding Courage
When the Famicom (a.k.a. Family Computer) or NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) first came out in the 1980s, one of the most popular games released by Nintendo was The Legend of Zelda. It was revolutionary for its time, and one of the concepts I liked about it was the idea of the triforce. The triforce was comprised of three triangles (I'd say pyramid but the graphics was still 2D at the time), each one representing a virtue: power, courage, and wisdom. The bad guy had the triforce of power. The hero, Link, had the triforce of courage. Later in the series, he'd eventually get the triforce of wisdom, and eventually, the triforce of power as well. Now some people might tell me it's just a game. That may be true. Yet the triforce hearkens to my soul. Why did Link start out with the triforce of courage and not wisdom? Is it really possible that through courage, one can seize power from the big, bad overlord?
Many of us have our own perceptions of what it is to possess courage. For some people, it might mean conquering your fears. For others, it could be doing stuff you don't want to do. Or laying your life down for others. Or sacrificing your life. Or standing up for what you believe in. No matter what your concept of courage is, it's always something positive. But so is the concept of wisdom. And sometimes, power as well. There are also a dozen other virtues out there. Yet why does courage stand out before the rest, or at least why is it so important?
Let's first look at power. I don't think power is really a virtue. It's neutral. Depending on who you ask, power has a different meaning. But most of them don't mind having power. Some might shun it, thinking that it can corrupt them, or believing that they are unworthy of it. Well, I honestly don't think it can corrupt people, at least to the extent that most people think. Power (whether it's wealth, authority, or even freedom) simply magnifies who you are: if you are a good person, you can use power to do good. If you're a selfish person, then giving you more power will only make your selfishness more evident. Perhaps the only difference between a powerless person and a powerful person is that the latter has more options in life. Sometimes, our inner greed isn't apparent simply because we either didn't have the option to do so before, or there were drastic consequences if we had acted in such a manner. As for those believing that they are unworthy of power, well, it depends on the person. If you underestimate yourself too much, then you'll never reach your full potential. If you rate your skills too poorly, you'll never amount to much, because you'll never stretch yourself to your limits and you'll never grow. You can also rate yourself too high if shunning power is really your way of showing false humility. There are drastic consequences when you overestimate yourself. One of the more common stories I hear from people who go to the gym is that on their first day, they lift more weights than they should because they thought that they could do more. What results is that they strain their muscles too much and are in pain for several days. For me, personal assessment is akin to the laws of supply and demand: one seeks equilibrium. Too much demand and prices rise. Too little demand and prices fall. In a certain way, it's easier to help the person who overestimates himself. It costs him his pride, but all he has to do is tone down his expectations of himself until he reaches the point where he operates at optimum efficiency. The person who underestimates himself, on the other hand, will perhaps have the more difficult time. On one hand, he should take pride in the fact that he could do more. But there's something he has to have in order to take that first step in doing more than what he's used to. What I'm talking about is courage. It takes courage for a person to accept more power, it takes courage for a man to go beyond what he thinks he's capable of. Don't get me wrong, it also takes courage for a person to swallow his pride and take on less responsibility than he thinks he's capable of. But one can't deny that it also takes courage to keep on taking steps to obtain power, whatever that may be for you.
Next there's wisdom. Some people call it knowledge, or intelligence, or insight. For me, wisdom is simply knowing what to do. Whatever it maybe, unlike power, you can never have too much of it. In the case of the person who is offered power, wisdom might take the form of knowing whether you're being given too much power, just enough, or too little. Yet as useful as that may be, it's useless if you don't act on it. Even until college, when the teacher asked a question that I knew the answer to, I won't always raise my hand. I hesitate because I think of the possibility of being wrong, hence embarrassing myself in class if I made a mistake. What's the difference between the times I raised my hand and when I didn’t? You guessed it, courage. Not that I always get it correct. Sometimes, I do embarrass myself in front of the class. But you know what, by the very fact that I attempted to answer the question and mentioned what I thought the correct answer was, I got corrected. And that's when I gain more wisdom. Because what I thought was right was actually wrong and it was brought to my attention. For me, wisdom and courage often went together. I mean it takes courage to search for wisdom. For example, if you did something that you were unsure of was wrong or right, one would be tempted not to look for the right answer. At least in uncertainty, you had a 50/50 chance of possessing the moral high ground, and you had the ultimate scapegoat, which is saying "I didn't know". But searching for the right answer, ah, that's more difficult. Because not only do you expend your energy searching for the right answer, you must also accept the possibility of being wrong. And when you do realize you are wrong, what do you do next? Most of the steps in acquiring wisdom involves courage. And similarly, wisdom is reduced to plain knowledge if you don't act on it. Yet on the other hand, without wisdom, even your most courageous acts will seem like folly to most people. A person who runs into a burning building without a plan (or know who to save and how to get out) is foolish since it's almost identical to suicide. The person had good intentions, no doubt, but the people watching him burn wouldn’t know that. But if the person had an escape plan and managed to rescue a few people, then he'd be a hero, even if it costs him his life. Here, we see wisdom and courage in tandem.
There are also other virtues like temperance, fortitude, and justice. Well, one can't enact temperance without courage. The same goes for justice. Fortitude simply entails not only possessing courage but maintaining it as well. In Buddhism, there's also realizing your true self, eternity, happiness, and purity. It takes a combination of wisdom and courage to actualize all of these. So to me, it seems like courage revolves around the virtues. Yet knowing all this is like possessing wisdom: we know what we should do. But the question is, what do we do about it? In a way, it's like smoking. No one believes that smoking is good for your health. Yet a significant number of the population does it. And they're actually killing themselves (and those around them) slowly. To me, that's possessing wisdom without courage. And in certain ways, it’s worse than being ignorant and doing something wrong because you didn't know any better. That's probably one of the reasons why Jesus in the Bible was so aggressive about missionary work and preaching: if you told people about the Good News, then the reason they're not saved isn't your burden; but if they haven't heard it, then part of the blame is upon you, the people who have heard the Good News and didn't share it. Which is why I must ask, how does one find courage?
Well, I can assure you no one is born 100% courageous. I say that because everyone fears something, everyone has a weakness or two. Yet there's something in these people that enabled them to overcome this limitation. Name me a profession which you think requires courage: military officer, teachers, missionaries, actors/actresses. Sounds like a bunch of brave people, right? Well, I don't think all military officers were born brave. But I can bet you all of them have a certain need, which is why they joined the army. Maybe it's a desire to support their families at home, or to protect their homeland, or to just earn money. These reasons are what drives them to conquer their fears and go beyond what they think they can do. The same goes for teachers. Do you think teachers aren't shy? I knew a teacher who talks to a wall as a way to practice and calm herself before a class. Is she afraid and tense? Yes. What drives her to go on teaching? I don't know. Maybe she thinks its her calling. Or maybe she realizes the good she can do with her work, and continues nonetheless despite her inner doubts. And missionaries? For all its perks, missionaries also endure a lot of hardship, whether its entering unknown territory, moving when you've just grown attached to a place, or simply being in danger from those opposed against your belief. And I don't think they honestly get financially compensated enough for those kinds of predicaments. Yet they go on, because their cause is something they believe in, something they feel they must do. Believe it or not, actors and actresses get star struck as well. I just saw Jennifer Love Hewitt a few days ago at Conan O’Brien’s talk show and she narrated at how frantic she was when she met Catherine Zeta Jones. Actors do get frightened. And I'm sure that on their first live performance, they were tense as well. Yet they manage to get over it. There's something that drives them to do so.
I think my main point is that even if you're a regular Joe, you're also capable of displaying courage. It doesn't take a unique and special person to be a courageous person. One merely needs to dig deep down within himself/herself and realize one's motivations in life. Sometimes, that's enough. If you're a parent, you probably won't walk on a tightrope, but if your child was on the other end, you'd probably risk your life to save the life of your child. If you have a dream, that dream might be worth sacrificing your time and effort and enable you to go out of your comfort zone. If you belong to a team, responsibility and duty for the team might give you the courage to do what you must do rather than what you think you want. What's the secret of the triforce? It's uniting courage and wisdom to obtain power. Realizing your innermost desires, your motivations in life, takes wisdom. Acting on those dreams takes courage. And when you synthesize both, you acquire power. Power to realize more of you self, and power to do more than you previously could.
Many of us have our own perceptions of what it is to possess courage. For some people, it might mean conquering your fears. For others, it could be doing stuff you don't want to do. Or laying your life down for others. Or sacrificing your life. Or standing up for what you believe in. No matter what your concept of courage is, it's always something positive. But so is the concept of wisdom. And sometimes, power as well. There are also a dozen other virtues out there. Yet why does courage stand out before the rest, or at least why is it so important?
Let's first look at power. I don't think power is really a virtue. It's neutral. Depending on who you ask, power has a different meaning. But most of them don't mind having power. Some might shun it, thinking that it can corrupt them, or believing that they are unworthy of it. Well, I honestly don't think it can corrupt people, at least to the extent that most people think. Power (whether it's wealth, authority, or even freedom) simply magnifies who you are: if you are a good person, you can use power to do good. If you're a selfish person, then giving you more power will only make your selfishness more evident. Perhaps the only difference between a powerless person and a powerful person is that the latter has more options in life. Sometimes, our inner greed isn't apparent simply because we either didn't have the option to do so before, or there were drastic consequences if we had acted in such a manner. As for those believing that they are unworthy of power, well, it depends on the person. If you underestimate yourself too much, then you'll never reach your full potential. If you rate your skills too poorly, you'll never amount to much, because you'll never stretch yourself to your limits and you'll never grow. You can also rate yourself too high if shunning power is really your way of showing false humility. There are drastic consequences when you overestimate yourself. One of the more common stories I hear from people who go to the gym is that on their first day, they lift more weights than they should because they thought that they could do more. What results is that they strain their muscles too much and are in pain for several days. For me, personal assessment is akin to the laws of supply and demand: one seeks equilibrium. Too much demand and prices rise. Too little demand and prices fall. In a certain way, it's easier to help the person who overestimates himself. It costs him his pride, but all he has to do is tone down his expectations of himself until he reaches the point where he operates at optimum efficiency. The person who underestimates himself, on the other hand, will perhaps have the more difficult time. On one hand, he should take pride in the fact that he could do more. But there's something he has to have in order to take that first step in doing more than what he's used to. What I'm talking about is courage. It takes courage for a person to accept more power, it takes courage for a man to go beyond what he thinks he's capable of. Don't get me wrong, it also takes courage for a person to swallow his pride and take on less responsibility than he thinks he's capable of. But one can't deny that it also takes courage to keep on taking steps to obtain power, whatever that may be for you.
Next there's wisdom. Some people call it knowledge, or intelligence, or insight. For me, wisdom is simply knowing what to do. Whatever it maybe, unlike power, you can never have too much of it. In the case of the person who is offered power, wisdom might take the form of knowing whether you're being given too much power, just enough, or too little. Yet as useful as that may be, it's useless if you don't act on it. Even until college, when the teacher asked a question that I knew the answer to, I won't always raise my hand. I hesitate because I think of the possibility of being wrong, hence embarrassing myself in class if I made a mistake. What's the difference between the times I raised my hand and when I didn’t? You guessed it, courage. Not that I always get it correct. Sometimes, I do embarrass myself in front of the class. But you know what, by the very fact that I attempted to answer the question and mentioned what I thought the correct answer was, I got corrected. And that's when I gain more wisdom. Because what I thought was right was actually wrong and it was brought to my attention. For me, wisdom and courage often went together. I mean it takes courage to search for wisdom. For example, if you did something that you were unsure of was wrong or right, one would be tempted not to look for the right answer. At least in uncertainty, you had a 50/50 chance of possessing the moral high ground, and you had the ultimate scapegoat, which is saying "I didn't know". But searching for the right answer, ah, that's more difficult. Because not only do you expend your energy searching for the right answer, you must also accept the possibility of being wrong. And when you do realize you are wrong, what do you do next? Most of the steps in acquiring wisdom involves courage. And similarly, wisdom is reduced to plain knowledge if you don't act on it. Yet on the other hand, without wisdom, even your most courageous acts will seem like folly to most people. A person who runs into a burning building without a plan (or know who to save and how to get out) is foolish since it's almost identical to suicide. The person had good intentions, no doubt, but the people watching him burn wouldn’t know that. But if the person had an escape plan and managed to rescue a few people, then he'd be a hero, even if it costs him his life. Here, we see wisdom and courage in tandem.
There are also other virtues like temperance, fortitude, and justice. Well, one can't enact temperance without courage. The same goes for justice. Fortitude simply entails not only possessing courage but maintaining it as well. In Buddhism, there's also realizing your true self, eternity, happiness, and purity. It takes a combination of wisdom and courage to actualize all of these. So to me, it seems like courage revolves around the virtues. Yet knowing all this is like possessing wisdom: we know what we should do. But the question is, what do we do about it? In a way, it's like smoking. No one believes that smoking is good for your health. Yet a significant number of the population does it. And they're actually killing themselves (and those around them) slowly. To me, that's possessing wisdom without courage. And in certain ways, it’s worse than being ignorant and doing something wrong because you didn't know any better. That's probably one of the reasons why Jesus in the Bible was so aggressive about missionary work and preaching: if you told people about the Good News, then the reason they're not saved isn't your burden; but if they haven't heard it, then part of the blame is upon you, the people who have heard the Good News and didn't share it. Which is why I must ask, how does one find courage?
Well, I can assure you no one is born 100% courageous. I say that because everyone fears something, everyone has a weakness or two. Yet there's something in these people that enabled them to overcome this limitation. Name me a profession which you think requires courage: military officer, teachers, missionaries, actors/actresses. Sounds like a bunch of brave people, right? Well, I don't think all military officers were born brave. But I can bet you all of them have a certain need, which is why they joined the army. Maybe it's a desire to support their families at home, or to protect their homeland, or to just earn money. These reasons are what drives them to conquer their fears and go beyond what they think they can do. The same goes for teachers. Do you think teachers aren't shy? I knew a teacher who talks to a wall as a way to practice and calm herself before a class. Is she afraid and tense? Yes. What drives her to go on teaching? I don't know. Maybe she thinks its her calling. Or maybe she realizes the good she can do with her work, and continues nonetheless despite her inner doubts. And missionaries? For all its perks, missionaries also endure a lot of hardship, whether its entering unknown territory, moving when you've just grown attached to a place, or simply being in danger from those opposed against your belief. And I don't think they honestly get financially compensated enough for those kinds of predicaments. Yet they go on, because their cause is something they believe in, something they feel they must do. Believe it or not, actors and actresses get star struck as well. I just saw Jennifer Love Hewitt a few days ago at Conan O’Brien’s talk show and she narrated at how frantic she was when she met Catherine Zeta Jones. Actors do get frightened. And I'm sure that on their first live performance, they were tense as well. Yet they manage to get over it. There's something that drives them to do so.
I think my main point is that even if you're a regular Joe, you're also capable of displaying courage. It doesn't take a unique and special person to be a courageous person. One merely needs to dig deep down within himself/herself and realize one's motivations in life. Sometimes, that's enough. If you're a parent, you probably won't walk on a tightrope, but if your child was on the other end, you'd probably risk your life to save the life of your child. If you have a dream, that dream might be worth sacrificing your time and effort and enable you to go out of your comfort zone. If you belong to a team, responsibility and duty for the team might give you the courage to do what you must do rather than what you think you want. What's the secret of the triforce? It's uniting courage and wisdom to obtain power. Realizing your innermost desires, your motivations in life, takes wisdom. Acting on those dreams takes courage. And when you synthesize both, you acquire power. Power to realize more of you self, and power to do more than you previously could.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Do As You Please
I think each and every one of us has tried doing what we want, even if it comes at the cost of other people. We do as we please, as if we're answerable to no one. And more often than not, there's someone that stops us or scolds us, whether it's our parents, our teachers, our employers, or our peers. The most common excuse I've heard is "it's my life, let me do what I want". I can't deny that we have free will and that we could possibly do what we want. But as for whether we own our lives, that's where I beg to differ.
For the most part, I think most of us underestimates our worth. I don't think we own our lives entirely to ourselves simply for the fact that what we do not only affects us but affects other people as well. As much as we want our lives to be as private as masturbation, it really isn't. We're born with relationships and our words and actions reflect on the people we have relationships with. If you don't believe me, just look at your name. Your whole name. What does it say? Mine is Charles Tan. I'm sure that already tells you a lot about me. And who my family is. I mean my last name already associates me with my parents and relatives. Or perhaps even other people you know that have the same last name as me even if I'm not related to them. How I speak and what I do not only gives you an impression of myself but of those other people as well. We can't help it: we human beings make associations and generalizations. They're not always true or factual but we make them nonetheless. If, for example, I lied to you, then one of the impressions you could make is that all Chinese are liars, or at least those with the family name of Tan. And you in turn will share these impressions with other people you meet, either consciously or unconsciously. I've caused a chain reaction simply by existing. Like most things, our ability to do this swings both ways. It could be used for people's benefit, or to people's detriment. Which is why that to a certain extent, I think it's everybody's duty to be responsible.
Maybe you don't care about your family. There are other relationships you're involved with. I, for example, am associated with a lot of people and organizations: my school, the university I studied in, my religion, my nationality, my occupation, and my friends. The good things you do reflects on them. The bad things that you do reflects on them as well, whether we intend it or not. We once had a speaker at my alma matter during the impeachment of former president Joseph Estrada. The speaker was an alumni from UP and he talked at how proud he was when Marcos was elected into office. And then felt shame at the events of Martial Law. And didn't Ateneo also take pride at its high-school dropout when he became president of the Philippines? Of course now that former president Joseph Estrada was being impeached, the speaker felt that things were even between the two universities. See, even if you occupy a powerful position, you're still accountable to a lot of people, whether it's your countrymen, your alma matter, or your family name. You just can't say "I'll do it because I feel like it", at least not with the "important" decisions. And I highlight "important" because some of the things we deem unimportant are actually important and vice versa. For example, deciding what food you'll eat or not eat might not seem like an important decision. But perhaps you're a hero to a number of people and you know how people feel about heroes, they're admired and often mimicked. If you drink alcohol and smoke, chances are, other people will drink alcohol and smoke as well.
I was just reading John Maxwell's The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork and one of the things he pointed out was how one bad apple can ruin the whole bunch. And it's happened in real life. I mean I attribute the not-so-good reputation of Christianity to a few rotten apples. I mean let's face it, not all Christians are good Christians. Yet what turns off a number of people aren't the good Christians but rather the bad ones, perhaps those who are hypocrites, or the ones that take advantage of other people. And I've seen this also happen to organizations ("I don't like to join that group because I don't like this person") and even countries ("Arabs attacked our nation so all Arabs should suffer"). We know it's not right (both on those who are actually performing the wrong deeds and those making the false conclusions) yet it's pervasive in most cultures. So what's the solution?
Obviously, one way is to think things thoroughly and not make shallow generalizations. One can do this by understanding the other side and where they're coming from. Or actually taking the time to investigate things and not be dissuaded by the actions of a few. It's easy to say but difficult to implement, is it not? Well, there's also another way. It's to be good examples yourselves. I mean if people don't see wrong behavior, they can't make wrong generalizations. Perhaps that's even more difficult to implement. Yet that's something we should all strive for. Caution and discretion is something we should exercise in everything we do, not just when the spotlight is on us. Because honestly, there are times when we don't know that the spotlight is on us. There'll always be someone watching, listening. Those who live consistent lives make the best role models.
When I get the urge to simply do what I want, I ask myself whether what I'm doing is aligned with my beliefs, my standards, and how it affects other people. That doesn't mean I can't have a good time. Contrary to popular belief, having a good time isn't always doing the wrong things. Have you given a gift to someone? Or helped out a friend? Did you feel good? Now was that a bad thing? And of course, if you don't think it's wrong, it's okay to do it. I mean some people condemn drinking. For me, what's apprehensive is either obsessive drinking or drinking too much. Moderate drinking (which is actually less than what most people would consider "moderate") is fine. But just because I said that does not give us an excuse to do whatever we want. I espouse the belief of doing what you think is right, or at the very least, something you aren't ashamed of letting other people know you're doing. And of course, along those lines is not being a hypocrite.
One cannot simply live as if we don't owe anything to the world. It's often stated that along with freedom comes responsibility or duty. Hey, even if we kill ourselves, we don't absolve ourselves from the rest of the world. Somebody has to pay for the funeral, and somebody will mourn losing you. If you think your life is meaningless, think again. Your actions have an effect on someone else, whether directly or indirectly. We exist not merely for our own sakes, but for other people as well.
For the most part, I think most of us underestimates our worth. I don't think we own our lives entirely to ourselves simply for the fact that what we do not only affects us but affects other people as well. As much as we want our lives to be as private as masturbation, it really isn't. We're born with relationships and our words and actions reflect on the people we have relationships with. If you don't believe me, just look at your name. Your whole name. What does it say? Mine is Charles Tan. I'm sure that already tells you a lot about me. And who my family is. I mean my last name already associates me with my parents and relatives. Or perhaps even other people you know that have the same last name as me even if I'm not related to them. How I speak and what I do not only gives you an impression of myself but of those other people as well. We can't help it: we human beings make associations and generalizations. They're not always true or factual but we make them nonetheless. If, for example, I lied to you, then one of the impressions you could make is that all Chinese are liars, or at least those with the family name of Tan. And you in turn will share these impressions with other people you meet, either consciously or unconsciously. I've caused a chain reaction simply by existing. Like most things, our ability to do this swings both ways. It could be used for people's benefit, or to people's detriment. Which is why that to a certain extent, I think it's everybody's duty to be responsible.
Maybe you don't care about your family. There are other relationships you're involved with. I, for example, am associated with a lot of people and organizations: my school, the university I studied in, my religion, my nationality, my occupation, and my friends. The good things you do reflects on them. The bad things that you do reflects on them as well, whether we intend it or not. We once had a speaker at my alma matter during the impeachment of former president Joseph Estrada. The speaker was an alumni from UP and he talked at how proud he was when Marcos was elected into office. And then felt shame at the events of Martial Law. And didn't Ateneo also take pride at its high-school dropout when he became president of the Philippines? Of course now that former president Joseph Estrada was being impeached, the speaker felt that things were even between the two universities. See, even if you occupy a powerful position, you're still accountable to a lot of people, whether it's your countrymen, your alma matter, or your family name. You just can't say "I'll do it because I feel like it", at least not with the "important" decisions. And I highlight "important" because some of the things we deem unimportant are actually important and vice versa. For example, deciding what food you'll eat or not eat might not seem like an important decision. But perhaps you're a hero to a number of people and you know how people feel about heroes, they're admired and often mimicked. If you drink alcohol and smoke, chances are, other people will drink alcohol and smoke as well.
I was just reading John Maxwell's The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork and one of the things he pointed out was how one bad apple can ruin the whole bunch. And it's happened in real life. I mean I attribute the not-so-good reputation of Christianity to a few rotten apples. I mean let's face it, not all Christians are good Christians. Yet what turns off a number of people aren't the good Christians but rather the bad ones, perhaps those who are hypocrites, or the ones that take advantage of other people. And I've seen this also happen to organizations ("I don't like to join that group because I don't like this person") and even countries ("Arabs attacked our nation so all Arabs should suffer"). We know it's not right (both on those who are actually performing the wrong deeds and those making the false conclusions) yet it's pervasive in most cultures. So what's the solution?
Obviously, one way is to think things thoroughly and not make shallow generalizations. One can do this by understanding the other side and where they're coming from. Or actually taking the time to investigate things and not be dissuaded by the actions of a few. It's easy to say but difficult to implement, is it not? Well, there's also another way. It's to be good examples yourselves. I mean if people don't see wrong behavior, they can't make wrong generalizations. Perhaps that's even more difficult to implement. Yet that's something we should all strive for. Caution and discretion is something we should exercise in everything we do, not just when the spotlight is on us. Because honestly, there are times when we don't know that the spotlight is on us. There'll always be someone watching, listening. Those who live consistent lives make the best role models.
When I get the urge to simply do what I want, I ask myself whether what I'm doing is aligned with my beliefs, my standards, and how it affects other people. That doesn't mean I can't have a good time. Contrary to popular belief, having a good time isn't always doing the wrong things. Have you given a gift to someone? Or helped out a friend? Did you feel good? Now was that a bad thing? And of course, if you don't think it's wrong, it's okay to do it. I mean some people condemn drinking. For me, what's apprehensive is either obsessive drinking or drinking too much. Moderate drinking (which is actually less than what most people would consider "moderate") is fine. But just because I said that does not give us an excuse to do whatever we want. I espouse the belief of doing what you think is right, or at the very least, something you aren't ashamed of letting other people know you're doing. And of course, along those lines is not being a hypocrite.
One cannot simply live as if we don't owe anything to the world. It's often stated that along with freedom comes responsibility or duty. Hey, even if we kill ourselves, we don't absolve ourselves from the rest of the world. Somebody has to pay for the funeral, and somebody will mourn losing you. If you think your life is meaningless, think again. Your actions have an effect on someone else, whether directly or indirectly. We exist not merely for our own sakes, but for other people as well.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Christianity is Difficult
What amazes me is that many people, including both Christians and non-Christians, have this belief that Christianity is an easy religion. Or better yet, that the Christian God is so benevolent that nothing bad can happen to those who worship Him. I'm really sorry to dispel your illusions, but Christianity is anything but easy. In fact, being a Christian will give you extraordinary burdens and might even land you in trouble depending on the situation.
First off, those expecting rewards and riches from being a Christian should forget all that. If you look closely at the New Testament, you'll see that Jesus died on the cross, suffering for our sins. And along the way, a lot of good people suffered as well, be it the Apostles, Jesus's disciples, and sincere believers. If you're a Catholic, a lot of martyrs and saints died a horrible death and lived problematic lives. Now I'm not saying all this to scare you. I'm just setting expectations, and showing how Christianity never promised paradise on Earth if that's what you're expecting. And don't be disheartened by all the gloom and doom surrounding the protagonists of the Church. They might have suffered a lot but it was in the service of a cause they believed in. Just look at your modern day heroes, and not just the Christian ones. Every hero had to endure suffering at one point or another in order to achieve their goal. War heroes sacrificed their life for the glory of their country, artists starve and get criticized before creating their masterpieces, and even successful entrepreneurs have their fair share of failed businesses. The point? They all felt that the cost was well worth it. And in the end, they found their sense of worth and purpose. I always believed that everything came at a price. In the case of Christianity, part of the price you pay will be suffering. We can't take that away, although some Christians do suffer less than others. No one can guarantee that you won't suffer for your belief, but I can guarantee you that you don't have genuine belief in something if you're not willing to suffer for it.
Another common complaint I hear is "why does God allow this to happen?" or "why do good people suffer?". First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the value system of Christianity is a meritocracy: people get what they deserve, or that life should be fair. Understand that Christians are striving for that because that's not the reality. That might be the case in heaven but obviously, that's not the case here on Earth. Why does God allow it to happen? Well, what most believers will tell you is that God has a purpose for us and only He knows where it'll take us. And in certain ways, that's true. I mean I don't know what tomorrow might bring. An unfortunate event today might shape my life so that it'll be a boon in the future. Let's say you get into an accident today, rendering you temporarily paralyzed. And then tomorrow there's a war and the army conscripts all able-bodied people to go to war. The previous day, my accident might seem like the worst thing that could have happened. But in light of recent events, it might appear like a blessing in disguise since I don't have to go to war. My other take on it is that well, unfortunate events do happen to everyone and not just to Christians. In fact, the true test of a Christian is when he faces adversity. I mean let's face it, it's easy to be good and kind when the situation is in your favor: if you're rich, it's easier to give; if you're in a good mood, it's easier to smile; when you have time, it's easier to be there for others. But when the situation is reversed, it's similarly more difficult. And in the end, if you look at things, the only reason the human race has evolved is because it continues to strive, to become better than it already is. The only reason that can occur is when we face adversity. As for the question "why do good people suffer", well, why not? Suffering makes us human. It enables us to empathize with other suffering people as well. Honestly, would you go back to the archaic belief that sick people are possessed by evil spirits? Life is far from black and white and not as distinguishable as that. As long as you're living, you will suffer. Your moral outlook on life won't change that. And for all this negative talk about what God allows and what he doesn't allow, have you ever stopped to ask "how has God blessed me today?" or "does God reward good people?" Sure, even evil people are blessed and rewarded. I can't deny that. But good people tend to be happier about it (not that evil people aren't happy when they're blessed and rewarded) because they usually attribute it to an external source, whether it be God, their friends, or some other agency. Good people don't think their achievement is the result of their own effort alone. They recognize that it was possible through the aid of others, and how fortunate they really are to have those kind of people around.
When we were children, some of us were criticized by our parents for our grades. If we got a 99 out of a 100, they'd give us a sermon for not getting that one question right. If you were in that situation, don't you wish that they'd praise you for getting the 99 other questions correct rather than focus on your one mistake? In a certain way, that's how we see God when disaster falls upon us. We don't stop and thank him for the fact that we're still alive and that we have friends, family, and whatever wealth (no matter how small or big that sum is) we have. Rather, some of us criticize God for this and that. Honestly, when you look at the bigger picture, we have a lot more to be thankful for more than to be angry about. And the cynics out there might tell me God has no right to be 99 out of a 100 because he's supposed to perfect. Well, to me, God is perfect in the fact that he gives us imperfect conditions. Because people are imperfect, and I honestly doubt it if we'd appreciate perfect conditions. I mean if you suddenly had the perfect friend or boyfriend/girlfriend, at some point, you'll be jealous of him/her or be annoyed at him/her; because they can do no wrong, while your mistakes just keep on piling up. As human beings, we have imperfect needs, and the only way we grow is usually through imperfect experiences. Or think of it as God as your guardian angel (and He actually is). The dilemma of the guardian angel is that the only time you only realize he's around (or rather, he's not around) is when disaster strikes you. Does one really get to appreciate the rest of the time he's guarding you? And hey, I personally wouldn't blame God if he faltered for just a moment just to make us realize that He's there. But I don't think God is that petty.
Being a Christian is difficult, huh? Well, anything worthwhile is usually difficult. In fact, the only time people grow, mature, and learn is when we encounter something difficult. If Christianity was easy, everyone would sign on and we'd all be living in paradise. But that's not the case. The call to be a Christian is difficult. And many of us are reluctant to heed that call precisely because of that fact. But in my perspective, life will be difficult either way. You'll still encounter problems (although not necessarily the same problems a Christian will face) and have to wake up every morning to the same planet. Perhaps what differentiates a Christian from a non-Christian is their genuine belief. More than their actions, a Christian's belief is what separates him or her from non-Christians. Because if you have a genuine faith, you'll know that there's meaning in your life, no matter what the results of your actions will be. If you don't have that kind of belief, the best you can come up with is the statement of "we'll never know". And in a certain sense, even for Christians, that is true. There's a lot of things at this point in time that we'll never know. But I'd rather go on living with a belief in something, rather than live a life without one. As one of my philosophy teachers would say, even if in the end, Christianity is one big hoax, at the very least, I'll be a better person for my belief.
First off, those expecting rewards and riches from being a Christian should forget all that. If you look closely at the New Testament, you'll see that Jesus died on the cross, suffering for our sins. And along the way, a lot of good people suffered as well, be it the Apostles, Jesus's disciples, and sincere believers. If you're a Catholic, a lot of martyrs and saints died a horrible death and lived problematic lives. Now I'm not saying all this to scare you. I'm just setting expectations, and showing how Christianity never promised paradise on Earth if that's what you're expecting. And don't be disheartened by all the gloom and doom surrounding the protagonists of the Church. They might have suffered a lot but it was in the service of a cause they believed in. Just look at your modern day heroes, and not just the Christian ones. Every hero had to endure suffering at one point or another in order to achieve their goal. War heroes sacrificed their life for the glory of their country, artists starve and get criticized before creating their masterpieces, and even successful entrepreneurs have their fair share of failed businesses. The point? They all felt that the cost was well worth it. And in the end, they found their sense of worth and purpose. I always believed that everything came at a price. In the case of Christianity, part of the price you pay will be suffering. We can't take that away, although some Christians do suffer less than others. No one can guarantee that you won't suffer for your belief, but I can guarantee you that you don't have genuine belief in something if you're not willing to suffer for it.
Another common complaint I hear is "why does God allow this to happen?" or "why do good people suffer?". First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the value system of Christianity is a meritocracy: people get what they deserve, or that life should be fair. Understand that Christians are striving for that because that's not the reality. That might be the case in heaven but obviously, that's not the case here on Earth. Why does God allow it to happen? Well, what most believers will tell you is that God has a purpose for us and only He knows where it'll take us. And in certain ways, that's true. I mean I don't know what tomorrow might bring. An unfortunate event today might shape my life so that it'll be a boon in the future. Let's say you get into an accident today, rendering you temporarily paralyzed. And then tomorrow there's a war and the army conscripts all able-bodied people to go to war. The previous day, my accident might seem like the worst thing that could have happened. But in light of recent events, it might appear like a blessing in disguise since I don't have to go to war. My other take on it is that well, unfortunate events do happen to everyone and not just to Christians. In fact, the true test of a Christian is when he faces adversity. I mean let's face it, it's easy to be good and kind when the situation is in your favor: if you're rich, it's easier to give; if you're in a good mood, it's easier to smile; when you have time, it's easier to be there for others. But when the situation is reversed, it's similarly more difficult. And in the end, if you look at things, the only reason the human race has evolved is because it continues to strive, to become better than it already is. The only reason that can occur is when we face adversity. As for the question "why do good people suffer", well, why not? Suffering makes us human. It enables us to empathize with other suffering people as well. Honestly, would you go back to the archaic belief that sick people are possessed by evil spirits? Life is far from black and white and not as distinguishable as that. As long as you're living, you will suffer. Your moral outlook on life won't change that. And for all this negative talk about what God allows and what he doesn't allow, have you ever stopped to ask "how has God blessed me today?" or "does God reward good people?" Sure, even evil people are blessed and rewarded. I can't deny that. But good people tend to be happier about it (not that evil people aren't happy when they're blessed and rewarded) because they usually attribute it to an external source, whether it be God, their friends, or some other agency. Good people don't think their achievement is the result of their own effort alone. They recognize that it was possible through the aid of others, and how fortunate they really are to have those kind of people around.
When we were children, some of us were criticized by our parents for our grades. If we got a 99 out of a 100, they'd give us a sermon for not getting that one question right. If you were in that situation, don't you wish that they'd praise you for getting the 99 other questions correct rather than focus on your one mistake? In a certain way, that's how we see God when disaster falls upon us. We don't stop and thank him for the fact that we're still alive and that we have friends, family, and whatever wealth (no matter how small or big that sum is) we have. Rather, some of us criticize God for this and that. Honestly, when you look at the bigger picture, we have a lot more to be thankful for more than to be angry about. And the cynics out there might tell me God has no right to be 99 out of a 100 because he's supposed to perfect. Well, to me, God is perfect in the fact that he gives us imperfect conditions. Because people are imperfect, and I honestly doubt it if we'd appreciate perfect conditions. I mean if you suddenly had the perfect friend or boyfriend/girlfriend, at some point, you'll be jealous of him/her or be annoyed at him/her; because they can do no wrong, while your mistakes just keep on piling up. As human beings, we have imperfect needs, and the only way we grow is usually through imperfect experiences. Or think of it as God as your guardian angel (and He actually is). The dilemma of the guardian angel is that the only time you only realize he's around (or rather, he's not around) is when disaster strikes you. Does one really get to appreciate the rest of the time he's guarding you? And hey, I personally wouldn't blame God if he faltered for just a moment just to make us realize that He's there. But I don't think God is that petty.
Being a Christian is difficult, huh? Well, anything worthwhile is usually difficult. In fact, the only time people grow, mature, and learn is when we encounter something difficult. If Christianity was easy, everyone would sign on and we'd all be living in paradise. But that's not the case. The call to be a Christian is difficult. And many of us are reluctant to heed that call precisely because of that fact. But in my perspective, life will be difficult either way. You'll still encounter problems (although not necessarily the same problems a Christian will face) and have to wake up every morning to the same planet. Perhaps what differentiates a Christian from a non-Christian is their genuine belief. More than their actions, a Christian's belief is what separates him or her from non-Christians. Because if you have a genuine faith, you'll know that there's meaning in your life, no matter what the results of your actions will be. If you don't have that kind of belief, the best you can come up with is the statement of "we'll never know". And in a certain sense, even for Christians, that is true. There's a lot of things at this point in time that we'll never know. But I'd rather go on living with a belief in something, rather than live a life without one. As one of my philosophy teachers would say, even if in the end, Christianity is one big hoax, at the very least, I'll be a better person for my belief.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Does Appearance Matter?
Obviously, aesthetics plays an important role in people's lives. Why are people fascinated with the sunrise, or why wear clothes at all and not just uniforms? Physical appearance is a form of beauty, and it's something everyone can appreciate. I think I need to rephrase my question from whether appearance matters or not. A better question would be whether beauty is important, or even necessary, in a situation where it's not the main criteria (or at least it's not the "apparent" criteria).
The first thing that comes to mind is politics. In the Philippines, it's not merely enough that you be savvy when it comes to laws, policies, and integrity. Filipinos want the whole package: they want charm, personality, and yes, beauty. I'm not saying this is wrong per se, but rather Filipinos want it all. My political science teacher told me that in Japan, the Japanese merely settle for intelligence and predictability. It doesn't matter if their leaders are boring or ugly, as long as they get the job done. And it does their nation credit as well since Japan is a powerful nation, both politically and economically. The same can't be said for the Philippines though. Let's face it, aesthetics plays an important role in our lives. That's why each of our jeepneys appear unique and don't look like the result of some mass-production system. If we want a charismatic leader, go ahead and vote for him or her. The only thing that irks me though is that in the absence of knowledge regarding the candidate, Filipinos go for the only thing that they can immediately determine: the person's looks. I've heard people vote based on appearance. "Mas guwapo siya eh," ("He's more handsome") is usually the criteria some Filipinos base their decisions on. And let's face it, taking a quick glance from the newspaper or pamphlet that promotes who you are, the only thing you can determine in those five seconds is really the person's appearance. Not the candidate's stance, or his position, or even his values, but his appearance (and the cynics in the country would justify that the politicians are lying about their positions and beliefs anyway). My advice to would-be politicians? Invest time and money with a good marketer. In Japan, it's good enough that you'll survive with merely your brains and skills. Unfortunately, the Philippines isn't Japan. Appearances do matter in this country. Is it fair? Well, like I said, Filipinos want it all and won't settle for anything less (and sometimes, that's not a bad thing).
Second is when it comes to occupation. There's a reason why resumes come with ID pictures. And honestly, no matter what your job or career is, it's always an advantage to have a pretty face. Or at least a smiling one. Honestly, if we had two people of equal skill and talent, who would you choose? Or perhaps a better analogy would be if we had identical twins raised in the same manner and had the same set of friends, except one of them got into an accident that left them physically scarred, who would you choose based on preference and not on pity (or even sympathy for that matter). Unfortunately, some of us get too carried away and hire those with prettier faces rather than those who are more qualified. Of course that's not always a crime per se. It perhaps depends on your criteria for "qualified". There 's "qualified" in which the person is perfectly capable of performing a certain task, except the other, less pretty person does it better, and there's "qualified" wherein the prettier person is inept at it. The former is an acceptable decision for me. Because honestly, in an occupation set-up, there are a lot of factors that can affect work which isn't solely based on output. Perhaps the prettier person has a more pleasant personality or appearance. That builds up the company's morale (and let's face it, morale is not exactly something you can measure scientifically). Or perhaps the person in question is in a position where his or her appearance is needed for optimum performance, such as being the company's spokesperson or in the marketing branch of the company (because honestly, clients and customers are more willing to concede to the company if the person they're talking to is more pleasant or pretty). And besides, if it was something like TV or print-ads, appearance is everything. The other person might be more talented or acts better, but the prettier person might be the better choice since he or she can get the product more attention. Just take a look at the Korean actress Sandara; honestly, she irritates me, but lots of Filipinos adore her simply because she's pretty. Now the question you'll be asking is whether this is fair or not. Well, sometimes it actually is. If someone pretty can get me better results, then hiring him or her is a fair decision. Sometimes it's not, such as choosing someone based on looks alone rather than on their actual qualifications. But of course, if it's a deadlock (i.e. similar qualifications), you really can't blame the employer if they choose the prettier one.
Something I'd like to add to the second example is how people in general are usually more receptive to prettier people. I mean take your teacher for example. If he was a hot stud or she was a beautiful babe, wouldn't you be more willing to pay attention in class (or listen to what the other person has to say)? Of course this is not always effective since you can also lose "authority" based on your appearance, but in general, people give you credit based on first impressions. Now we all know first impressions aren't exactly the most efficient way of judging people. Yet a lot of people make their decisions based on this. Obviously, this isn't fair (and I never pretended to believe that the world was ever fair). But the question I want to throw back is whether you practice what you preach. Sure, we expect others to not base their decisions regarding us based on first impressions, but how much do we also base our decisions based on first impressions?
The third example I want to point out is competitions. Lately, one of the more controversial things I've been reading is regarding Digital Pinay and how the group is judging female contestants based on appearance as well as actual IT skill and talent. Well, the only thing I have to say there is that you have to understand their stance. It's a company and the winner is going to be a spokesperson or representative. As much as I want people to treat people based on merit, let's face it, other people will judge based on appearances. Imelda Marcos (as much as I loathe the former First Lady) was perhaps one of our best ambassadors to China not because of her intellect but because of her charm, beauty, and cunning. Or perhaps a better analogy would be the best-selling writers out there. Best-selling authors are just that: best-selling. Just because they're best-selling doesn't necessarily mean that they're the best-written ones. I understand the stance of those against Digital Pinay. But I also understand the position of those holding the competition. And to me, there seems to be a disagreement simply because each of the parties are working under different criteria. The former believe it's an actual contest of intellectual superiority and skill. For the latter, it could a number of reasons: This could just be a big marketing gimmick, for example. It could also be that they're looking for a model to represent them. And in the end, let's face it: as long as there's some sort of representation (and in the end, everyone is more or less representing someone or carrying the name of someone, whether it's the name of the company you're working for, the religion you believe in, the school you study in, or even the family you belong to), there will always be a need evaluate a person's physical appearance. I mean when I was studying in Xavier school, the best way for me to represent the school was by the uniform I was wearing. If I was in civilian attire and I said I was a representative of the school (in a formal meeting of course), what impression would that give to everyone else (I'm not saying that the impression I'd be giving would be wrong, but it might be an impression that was counterproductive to the vision and mission the school wants to espouse)? It's much akin to expecting a blind person to give you painting lessons. I'm not saying that appearance should be a vital factor (whether it plays a major or minor criteria is best left to the organizers and what their intent is) but it should be a criteria nonetheless. Thankfully, not all competitions need to be so. I mean the Palanca awards, for example, are competitions based on written work and the contestants, for the most part, are anonymous until the winners are finally announced. But then again, you also have to look at the goals of the Palanca awards. I mean when we hear of the winners, it's not like we also see their picture. All we get are their names, and the title of their work. Researchers can always look up the winner's portrait, but it would probably be easier to gain access to their written work rather than their picture.
Of course I'd also like to point out that the times are changing. Take the Internet for example. Previously, it was a network of anonymity. You didn't know what the other person looked like on the other side except for what they wrote. But a decade later, we have blogs, instant messengers, and even Friendster, and more often than not, these places will have pictures of the other person (whether this is the actual picture is another matter). Why? Because appearances do matter. And honestly, people aren't a bunch of components that you can easily subdivide and isolate. I mean take intelligence for example. Intelligence isn't something you can easily measure in a person. Sure, you can take an exam, but an exam won't really convey the person's intelligence in its entirety. In fact, a person's intelligence might be reflected in the way they write, in the way they talk, and yes, in their apperance. And similarly, the way I write, the way I talk, and the way I appear points to the other details of my personality, whether it be my creativity, my integrity, or whatever other criteria I can think of.
In the end, we must remember that people are people, and that what makes us unique is our blended characteristics. We should be taken as the sum of our parts rather than merely our individual aspects. And while we might be looking for individual talents, we must also remember that these individual talents can't be easily separated from the whole. And this includes appearance. If God never meant for us to judge via looks, then he wouldn't have given us senses. Or blessed us with outstanding body parts.
The first thing that comes to mind is politics. In the Philippines, it's not merely enough that you be savvy when it comes to laws, policies, and integrity. Filipinos want the whole package: they want charm, personality, and yes, beauty. I'm not saying this is wrong per se, but rather Filipinos want it all. My political science teacher told me that in Japan, the Japanese merely settle for intelligence and predictability. It doesn't matter if their leaders are boring or ugly, as long as they get the job done. And it does their nation credit as well since Japan is a powerful nation, both politically and economically. The same can't be said for the Philippines though. Let's face it, aesthetics plays an important role in our lives. That's why each of our jeepneys appear unique and don't look like the result of some mass-production system. If we want a charismatic leader, go ahead and vote for him or her. The only thing that irks me though is that in the absence of knowledge regarding the candidate, Filipinos go for the only thing that they can immediately determine: the person's looks. I've heard people vote based on appearance. "Mas guwapo siya eh," ("He's more handsome") is usually the criteria some Filipinos base their decisions on. And let's face it, taking a quick glance from the newspaper or pamphlet that promotes who you are, the only thing you can determine in those five seconds is really the person's appearance. Not the candidate's stance, or his position, or even his values, but his appearance (and the cynics in the country would justify that the politicians are lying about their positions and beliefs anyway). My advice to would-be politicians? Invest time and money with a good marketer. In Japan, it's good enough that you'll survive with merely your brains and skills. Unfortunately, the Philippines isn't Japan. Appearances do matter in this country. Is it fair? Well, like I said, Filipinos want it all and won't settle for anything less (and sometimes, that's not a bad thing).
Second is when it comes to occupation. There's a reason why resumes come with ID pictures. And honestly, no matter what your job or career is, it's always an advantage to have a pretty face. Or at least a smiling one. Honestly, if we had two people of equal skill and talent, who would you choose? Or perhaps a better analogy would be if we had identical twins raised in the same manner and had the same set of friends, except one of them got into an accident that left them physically scarred, who would you choose based on preference and not on pity (or even sympathy for that matter). Unfortunately, some of us get too carried away and hire those with prettier faces rather than those who are more qualified. Of course that's not always a crime per se. It perhaps depends on your criteria for "qualified". There 's "qualified" in which the person is perfectly capable of performing a certain task, except the other, less pretty person does it better, and there's "qualified" wherein the prettier person is inept at it. The former is an acceptable decision for me. Because honestly, in an occupation set-up, there are a lot of factors that can affect work which isn't solely based on output. Perhaps the prettier person has a more pleasant personality or appearance. That builds up the company's morale (and let's face it, morale is not exactly something you can measure scientifically). Or perhaps the person in question is in a position where his or her appearance is needed for optimum performance, such as being the company's spokesperson or in the marketing branch of the company (because honestly, clients and customers are more willing to concede to the company if the person they're talking to is more pleasant or pretty). And besides, if it was something like TV or print-ads, appearance is everything. The other person might be more talented or acts better, but the prettier person might be the better choice since he or she can get the product more attention. Just take a look at the Korean actress Sandara; honestly, she irritates me, but lots of Filipinos adore her simply because she's pretty. Now the question you'll be asking is whether this is fair or not. Well, sometimes it actually is. If someone pretty can get me better results, then hiring him or her is a fair decision. Sometimes it's not, such as choosing someone based on looks alone rather than on their actual qualifications. But of course, if it's a deadlock (i.e. similar qualifications), you really can't blame the employer if they choose the prettier one.
Something I'd like to add to the second example is how people in general are usually more receptive to prettier people. I mean take your teacher for example. If he was a hot stud or she was a beautiful babe, wouldn't you be more willing to pay attention in class (or listen to what the other person has to say)? Of course this is not always effective since you can also lose "authority" based on your appearance, but in general, people give you credit based on first impressions. Now we all know first impressions aren't exactly the most efficient way of judging people. Yet a lot of people make their decisions based on this. Obviously, this isn't fair (and I never pretended to believe that the world was ever fair). But the question I want to throw back is whether you practice what you preach. Sure, we expect others to not base their decisions regarding us based on first impressions, but how much do we also base our decisions based on first impressions?
The third example I want to point out is competitions. Lately, one of the more controversial things I've been reading is regarding Digital Pinay and how the group is judging female contestants based on appearance as well as actual IT skill and talent. Well, the only thing I have to say there is that you have to understand their stance. It's a company and the winner is going to be a spokesperson or representative. As much as I want people to treat people based on merit, let's face it, other people will judge based on appearances. Imelda Marcos (as much as I loathe the former First Lady) was perhaps one of our best ambassadors to China not because of her intellect but because of her charm, beauty, and cunning. Or perhaps a better analogy would be the best-selling writers out there. Best-selling authors are just that: best-selling. Just because they're best-selling doesn't necessarily mean that they're the best-written ones. I understand the stance of those against Digital Pinay. But I also understand the position of those holding the competition. And to me, there seems to be a disagreement simply because each of the parties are working under different criteria. The former believe it's an actual contest of intellectual superiority and skill. For the latter, it could a number of reasons: This could just be a big marketing gimmick, for example. It could also be that they're looking for a model to represent them. And in the end, let's face it: as long as there's some sort of representation (and in the end, everyone is more or less representing someone or carrying the name of someone, whether it's the name of the company you're working for, the religion you believe in, the school you study in, or even the family you belong to), there will always be a need evaluate a person's physical appearance. I mean when I was studying in Xavier school, the best way for me to represent the school was by the uniform I was wearing. If I was in civilian attire and I said I was a representative of the school (in a formal meeting of course), what impression would that give to everyone else (I'm not saying that the impression I'd be giving would be wrong, but it might be an impression that was counterproductive to the vision and mission the school wants to espouse)? It's much akin to expecting a blind person to give you painting lessons. I'm not saying that appearance should be a vital factor (whether it plays a major or minor criteria is best left to the organizers and what their intent is) but it should be a criteria nonetheless. Thankfully, not all competitions need to be so. I mean the Palanca awards, for example, are competitions based on written work and the contestants, for the most part, are anonymous until the winners are finally announced. But then again, you also have to look at the goals of the Palanca awards. I mean when we hear of the winners, it's not like we also see their picture. All we get are their names, and the title of their work. Researchers can always look up the winner's portrait, but it would probably be easier to gain access to their written work rather than their picture.
Of course I'd also like to point out that the times are changing. Take the Internet for example. Previously, it was a network of anonymity. You didn't know what the other person looked like on the other side except for what they wrote. But a decade later, we have blogs, instant messengers, and even Friendster, and more often than not, these places will have pictures of the other person (whether this is the actual picture is another matter). Why? Because appearances do matter. And honestly, people aren't a bunch of components that you can easily subdivide and isolate. I mean take intelligence for example. Intelligence isn't something you can easily measure in a person. Sure, you can take an exam, but an exam won't really convey the person's intelligence in its entirety. In fact, a person's intelligence might be reflected in the way they write, in the way they talk, and yes, in their apperance. And similarly, the way I write, the way I talk, and the way I appear points to the other details of my personality, whether it be my creativity, my integrity, or whatever other criteria I can think of.
In the end, we must remember that people are people, and that what makes us unique is our blended characteristics. We should be taken as the sum of our parts rather than merely our individual aspects. And while we might be looking for individual talents, we must also remember that these individual talents can't be easily separated from the whole. And this includes appearance. If God never meant for us to judge via looks, then he wouldn't have given us senses. Or blessed us with outstanding body parts.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Two Things Every Writer Should Do
I'm not really comfortable calling myself a writer. Because honestly, what have I written? Where are my published works? I've met great writers like Krip Yuzon, Danton Remoto, Dr. Rofel Brion, Christine Belen, Alvin Yapan, Dean Alfar, and a host of other talented writers and you know what, what am I compared to the likes of them (at least at this point in time)? All I have to show for is this blog/livejournal, and honestly, blogging is easy (at least compared to the other modes of writing). I do enjoy blogging, but I feel somehow that I'm cheating on the part of me that's a "writer". To all the would-be writers out there that shares this feeling, I have two pieces of advice for you. One is to write what you want. The other, more neglected part, is writing what you don't want.
The first one is easy. Nearly anyone can do it. Why else would people pursue a vocation in writing? Because there's something calling them to write, be it prose or poetry. There's an innate need to create and mince words. And of course, just as readers read the books that they want to read, writers write what they want to write. It's a writer's outlet. I don't care if you're producing shit-lit, fanfics, or masturbatory blog entries. If it makes you happy, do it. But of course, do it well. Everyone who has hands can produce graffiti. It takes a good writer though to produce something that catches the reader's attention. Anyone is capable of producing art. Whether it's beautiful art or not is a different question altogether. The same goes with writing. Create something that pleases you, but make sure it's pleasant to other people as well.
Of course having said that, if all the writers wrote what they wanted to write, there wouldn't be any growth. Which is why my second point is important as well. Write what you don't want to write. For example, if you're a poet who specializes in free verse, try your hand at rhymes, rhythm, or even the sonnets. If the main strength of your short stories is plot, try your hand at imagery. If all you've written are first-person narratives, try the third person. I must admit, I'm guilty of not following this. But if I want to improve my skills as a writer, I must be willing to explore and learn. And that means going out of my comfort zone into unfamiliar territory. You don't necessarily need to conquer it, but familiarizing yourself with other techniques and styles is a good experience for any writer.
Writing what you want and writing what you don't want are two elements that are in a constant state of flux. Take writing a short story, for example. Most likely, it'll be a story that the writer is interested in. But perhaps the best mode of expression for the piece is something he's not familiar with. Yet he has to do it, at least if he wants to come out with a great fiction piece. Then once the text is actually written, there'll be revisions and editing. The writer will then have to do away with certain parts, even if he's fallen in love with them, simply because it doesn't work. Similarly, there will also be sections that he has to add to make the story better. But of course, not all of this would be unpleasant, since the writer will develop wonderful passages and interesting characters along the way.
Or putting it in another perspective, the extremes of either one can also be devastating. A writer who always writes what he wants will never grow. His writing will go stale and never mature. Writing becomes a masturbatory act. On the other hand, if you continually keep on writing material that you don't want to write, one will eventually lose the passion for the art. What use is writing if you don't derive pleasure from it? A balance between the two is what's usually needed, the former to fuel your desires, the latter to train and develop your skills.
There are many people who claim to be writers. While I do believe that there's a soul of a writer in every person, not everyone makes it a vocation. Perhaps one way to tell them apart is to ask whether they're writing something they want or something they don't want. If it's the former, then writing is merely a hobby. If it's just the latter, it's a job. If you're doing both, well, I'm glad to have met a true writer.
The first one is easy. Nearly anyone can do it. Why else would people pursue a vocation in writing? Because there's something calling them to write, be it prose or poetry. There's an innate need to create and mince words. And of course, just as readers read the books that they want to read, writers write what they want to write. It's a writer's outlet. I don't care if you're producing shit-lit, fanfics, or masturbatory blog entries. If it makes you happy, do it. But of course, do it well. Everyone who has hands can produce graffiti. It takes a good writer though to produce something that catches the reader's attention. Anyone is capable of producing art. Whether it's beautiful art or not is a different question altogether. The same goes with writing. Create something that pleases you, but make sure it's pleasant to other people as well.
Of course having said that, if all the writers wrote what they wanted to write, there wouldn't be any growth. Which is why my second point is important as well. Write what you don't want to write. For example, if you're a poet who specializes in free verse, try your hand at rhymes, rhythm, or even the sonnets. If the main strength of your short stories is plot, try your hand at imagery. If all you've written are first-person narratives, try the third person. I must admit, I'm guilty of not following this. But if I want to improve my skills as a writer, I must be willing to explore and learn. And that means going out of my comfort zone into unfamiliar territory. You don't necessarily need to conquer it, but familiarizing yourself with other techniques and styles is a good experience for any writer.
Writing what you want and writing what you don't want are two elements that are in a constant state of flux. Take writing a short story, for example. Most likely, it'll be a story that the writer is interested in. But perhaps the best mode of expression for the piece is something he's not familiar with. Yet he has to do it, at least if he wants to come out with a great fiction piece. Then once the text is actually written, there'll be revisions and editing. The writer will then have to do away with certain parts, even if he's fallen in love with them, simply because it doesn't work. Similarly, there will also be sections that he has to add to make the story better. But of course, not all of this would be unpleasant, since the writer will develop wonderful passages and interesting characters along the way.
Or putting it in another perspective, the extremes of either one can also be devastating. A writer who always writes what he wants will never grow. His writing will go stale and never mature. Writing becomes a masturbatory act. On the other hand, if you continually keep on writing material that you don't want to write, one will eventually lose the passion for the art. What use is writing if you don't derive pleasure from it? A balance between the two is what's usually needed, the former to fuel your desires, the latter to train and develop your skills.
There are many people who claim to be writers. While I do believe that there's a soul of a writer in every person, not everyone makes it a vocation. Perhaps one way to tell them apart is to ask whether they're writing something they want or something they don't want. If it's the former, then writing is merely a hobby. If it's just the latter, it's a job. If you're doing both, well, I'm glad to have met a true writer.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Opposites Attract
I always believed that people bond together when they find something in common, whether it's something they like or suffering from the same adversity. Yet when I look around and judging from my own behavior, I also noticed that opposites do attract each other. If I believe in the saying "birds of the same feather flock together", how do I defend "opposites attract", and don't they contradict each other?
I don't think I need to present evidence showing how opposites attract each other. But I do think it's important to understand why they occur. To me, the most common reason is obtaining something you yourself don't personally have: it's the ugly guy who has a beautiful girlfriend, the poor man who has a rich friend, or the socially-inept person who has a socialite significant other. In other words, it's proving to yourself and to the world that you can have something that's usually denied from you. In the case of the ugly guy, he's acquiring beauty that he himself doesn't possess. In the case of the poor man, he gets a taste of what it's like to be rich. For the socially inept, the social atmosphere the significant other generates more than makes up for what's lacking. Yet it's also not as one-sided as this. For example, the beautiful girlfriend only looks more beautiful alongside her not-so-pleasant-looking boyfriend. The rich friend appears more wealthy, at least compared to his poor friend. And the socialite can revel in the attention he or she receives, especially when the socialite's friends comment on how shy the significant other is. I'm not saying this is bad. I mean if I were poor, wouldn't I want to have riches? And if that were the case, wouldn't riches look more attractive to me, than say, beauty? And similarly, if I had riches but lacked beauty, wouldn't someone or something pretty be more valuable? And if I didn't have enough confidence in myself, a good morale booster would be finding someone or something that doesn't seem threatening. I mean if I was the beautiful girlfriend and I had a handsome boyfriend, I might think that I'm not beautiful enough and my handsome boyfriend might leave me for someone else. But he wasn't as attractive, I could always think that he got the better deal and so won't leave me for someone else (even though that's not necessarily true).
Fascination can also be a motivating factor. I mean when someone is similar to us, we have insight into their lives, simply because we have something in common. A student, for example, can empathize more with fellow students but not with teachers. Sometimes, the other person becomes an enigma that we become attracted to them. Take for example the silent guy with deep thoughts. The girl who talks a lot might find the silent guy attractive because of the mystery that surrounds him. Unlike herself whose thoughts are transparent, she knows little about the guy aside from what's apparent. Or similarly, an artist might be attracted to the businessman, because the latter knows how to engage in business. The latter is also attracted to the former because his thoughts are usually logical while the former is more creative. When we encounter the unknown, there are only usually two reactions: either we fear it, or we become fascinated with it. If it's the former, we'll most likely stick to those we know, hence "like attracts like". If it's the latter, the phenomena of opposites attract occurs.
Another reason is linked to to the belief that "birds of the same feather flock together". If I was lazy and wanted to be hard-working, should I hang out with lazy people or hard-working people? It's obviously the latter, and it's because we want other people's talents to rub off on ourselves. I mean we see cowards hiding behind the courageous, the meek people under the wing of strong men and women, the average following the advice of the geniuses. It's not necessarily because the former wants to take advantage of the latter, but sometimes, it's because the former wants to become like the latter. And honestly, one of the best ways we learn is via exposure and mimicry. Sometimes it pays off. That's why people usually look for mentorship or leadership. Talent is developed. People who were once nobodies eventually become great men and women thanks to the apprenticeship of someone great. Cowards eventually conquer their fears by learning from the example of courageous individuals. It's not such a bad deal really. But of course, it doesn't work all the time. Just because I act like someone and talk like someone does not make me that someone. Copying and learning aren't exclusive to each other. Sometimes, we merely become poseurs, a wannabe who just happens to have the right connections and hangs out with the right people. Does that make me one of them? Not necessarily. At other times, we genuinely learn something from the other person, and we make the transition from trying to becoming. Eventually, someone who tries to write that great novel, for example, eventually writes that great novel. All those years practicing the craft and copying other writer's styles eventually pays off. The person is no longer copying any particular writer's style, but developed his or her own. And this can only be achieved by constant exposure. If we want to be good at something, we first find someone we can look up to or has accomplished that something we want to do, and we try to emulate them as much as we can. It's turning our weaknesses into strengths.
The last reason I find this situation to be true is when we do so to complement ourselves. A good example is any successful organization or business. Obviously, a lot of skills are needed in such an enterprise, and most likely, no one person has all the necessary skills to succeed. The solution is building a team. A team is composed of many members, each one with their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. The strength of one member complements the strength of the other members so that the weaknesses are covered up. Sometimes, there's even synergy that takes the group to new heights. Similarly, such a couple can also exist. There's the responsible wife who takes care of the details, while the husband determines the general direction of things. Or just look at the archaic image of the husband and wife: the husband provides for the family, while the wife takes care of the family. In this scenario, our individual weaknesses stop being weaknesses because there's someone else to take over.
I'm not professing any particular ideology here, but we do see how it's possible for completely different people to be attracted to each other. While people usually get along when they have a common ground, it's equally likely too that people will get along simply because they're different from each other.
I don't think I need to present evidence showing how opposites attract each other. But I do think it's important to understand why they occur. To me, the most common reason is obtaining something you yourself don't personally have: it's the ugly guy who has a beautiful girlfriend, the poor man who has a rich friend, or the socially-inept person who has a socialite significant other. In other words, it's proving to yourself and to the world that you can have something that's usually denied from you. In the case of the ugly guy, he's acquiring beauty that he himself doesn't possess. In the case of the poor man, he gets a taste of what it's like to be rich. For the socially inept, the social atmosphere the significant other generates more than makes up for what's lacking. Yet it's also not as one-sided as this. For example, the beautiful girlfriend only looks more beautiful alongside her not-so-pleasant-looking boyfriend. The rich friend appears more wealthy, at least compared to his poor friend. And the socialite can revel in the attention he or she receives, especially when the socialite's friends comment on how shy the significant other is. I'm not saying this is bad. I mean if I were poor, wouldn't I want to have riches? And if that were the case, wouldn't riches look more attractive to me, than say, beauty? And similarly, if I had riches but lacked beauty, wouldn't someone or something pretty be more valuable? And if I didn't have enough confidence in myself, a good morale booster would be finding someone or something that doesn't seem threatening. I mean if I was the beautiful girlfriend and I had a handsome boyfriend, I might think that I'm not beautiful enough and my handsome boyfriend might leave me for someone else. But he wasn't as attractive, I could always think that he got the better deal and so won't leave me for someone else (even though that's not necessarily true).
Fascination can also be a motivating factor. I mean when someone is similar to us, we have insight into their lives, simply because we have something in common. A student, for example, can empathize more with fellow students but not with teachers. Sometimes, the other person becomes an enigma that we become attracted to them. Take for example the silent guy with deep thoughts. The girl who talks a lot might find the silent guy attractive because of the mystery that surrounds him. Unlike herself whose thoughts are transparent, she knows little about the guy aside from what's apparent. Or similarly, an artist might be attracted to the businessman, because the latter knows how to engage in business. The latter is also attracted to the former because his thoughts are usually logical while the former is more creative. When we encounter the unknown, there are only usually two reactions: either we fear it, or we become fascinated with it. If it's the former, we'll most likely stick to those we know, hence "like attracts like". If it's the latter, the phenomena of opposites attract occurs.
Another reason is linked to to the belief that "birds of the same feather flock together". If I was lazy and wanted to be hard-working, should I hang out with lazy people or hard-working people? It's obviously the latter, and it's because we want other people's talents to rub off on ourselves. I mean we see cowards hiding behind the courageous, the meek people under the wing of strong men and women, the average following the advice of the geniuses. It's not necessarily because the former wants to take advantage of the latter, but sometimes, it's because the former wants to become like the latter. And honestly, one of the best ways we learn is via exposure and mimicry. Sometimes it pays off. That's why people usually look for mentorship or leadership. Talent is developed. People who were once nobodies eventually become great men and women thanks to the apprenticeship of someone great. Cowards eventually conquer their fears by learning from the example of courageous individuals. It's not such a bad deal really. But of course, it doesn't work all the time. Just because I act like someone and talk like someone does not make me that someone. Copying and learning aren't exclusive to each other. Sometimes, we merely become poseurs, a wannabe who just happens to have the right connections and hangs out with the right people. Does that make me one of them? Not necessarily. At other times, we genuinely learn something from the other person, and we make the transition from trying to becoming. Eventually, someone who tries to write that great novel, for example, eventually writes that great novel. All those years practicing the craft and copying other writer's styles eventually pays off. The person is no longer copying any particular writer's style, but developed his or her own. And this can only be achieved by constant exposure. If we want to be good at something, we first find someone we can look up to or has accomplished that something we want to do, and we try to emulate them as much as we can. It's turning our weaknesses into strengths.
The last reason I find this situation to be true is when we do so to complement ourselves. A good example is any successful organization or business. Obviously, a lot of skills are needed in such an enterprise, and most likely, no one person has all the necessary skills to succeed. The solution is building a team. A team is composed of many members, each one with their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. The strength of one member complements the strength of the other members so that the weaknesses are covered up. Sometimes, there's even synergy that takes the group to new heights. Similarly, such a couple can also exist. There's the responsible wife who takes care of the details, while the husband determines the general direction of things. Or just look at the archaic image of the husband and wife: the husband provides for the family, while the wife takes care of the family. In this scenario, our individual weaknesses stop being weaknesses because there's someone else to take over.
I'm not professing any particular ideology here, but we do see how it's possible for completely different people to be attracted to each other. While people usually get along when they have a common ground, it's equally likely too that people will get along simply because they're different from each other.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Is It Wrong to Dream?
This might seem like a strange question, yet a lot of people in our society (including our friends and relatives) do discourage us from our dreams. For example, when I told my parents I wanted to be a writer, my father was less than enthusiastic. He wanted me to pursue a degree that was more marketable, such as computer science, or even business. And I'm sure some people will laugh if you tell them an incredulous dream, such as perhaps being a billionaire (if you don't already come from a wealthy family that is), or being president of the country. So I ask, is it wrong to dream big? If not, why do people, including our loved ones, often discourage it?
Here's my take on things. Is it wrong to dream big? No, of course not. If people didn't have big aspirations, then the human race wouldn't progress. I mean the reason why we have television sets, cars, airplanes, or even mobile phones is because someone at some time had a big vision. Were they ridiculed? I'm sure they were. And depending on the era, some people might even have been persecuted for their beliefs. Did they succeed? Well, perhaps not at the start. But obviously, we now have the convenience of modern technology, and somebody had to invent them. And it all begins with a dream. Of course having said that, I won't say dreaming big will be easy. In fact, it's painful, and sometimes, even dangerous. The larger your dream the more difficult it will be for you, especially if it's not something that has been accomplished before. I mean a century ago, people would probably believe you more if you said you were going to be president rather than walking on the moon. At the least the former has precedence, and somebody has to be president (although of course, the chances of you being that person was slim). Walking on the moon, on the other hand, is not something that was possible then (but of course, fast forward half a century later and walking on the moon is a feat that can be achieved). Perhaps that's why our friends and family sometimes discourages us from dreaming big. Because obviously, not everyone gets to achieve their dreams. And when you fail, it hurts; the bigger your dream, the more painful the experience. It's like building the Tower of Babel: the higher you ascend, the more devastating the fall. But that's not always the case. What usually drives people to dream big is the similarly big pay-off. More often than not, the bigger the risks you take or the more "impossible" the feat, the greater the reward.
Having said all that, what does it mean to dream? Well, if you don't want to get hurt, don't dream. Settle for less. It's much like courting someone: you can't get rejected if you don't try. Of course similarly, you won't get much excitement either. I don't think our friends and parents don't want us to dream. They just don't want us to dream big dreams, mainly because big dreams entails lots of hardship and suffering. And honestly, who wants hardship and suffering, especially when it happens to someone you care about? It's not that they don't want good things for you. In fact, it's possible to have good things in life by having not-so-big dreams. Sometimes, being average is good enough. Sure, you're not uncovering your full potential, but it also requires less of you. Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Being average, is well, safe. People will have different views about you, but in the long run, being average is the least dangerous. For example, take a look at kidnapping. Who do kidnappers kidnap? Usually those who have a high profile, either you're rich or you're famous (since some assume that just because you're famous means you're rich). If you're average, well, there's a good chance you or your family won't get kidnapped. Similarly, people won't pay much attention to you either. I mean who do people pay attention to? The extraordinary people, whether they're a celebrity, a politician, or the president of a company. Big dreams isn't for everyone. But I do believe having dreams (no matter how insignificant it might seem) is vital. It's what drives us to become more human, to be better people.
Of course just because we have dreams does not mean we will achieve them. Perhaps what I see wrong in the world is that people mistake dreams for wishes. We've all heard the statement "I want a family, a house and lot, and a car". Is that a dream or a wish? Well, if you're doing something about it, it's a dream. A dream is a goal, something you try to obtain. If you're not doing anything about it and doing the same old stuff you did before that doesn't bring you closer to it, well, it's a wish. Why a wish? Because it'll never be achieved short of outside interference (such as somebody suddenly bequeathing you his or her wealth, or someone gives you a check of millions of dollars on your birthday). Again, I'm not saying wishing is wrong. We all have wishes. Most of us wishes for world peace or to stop world hunger. Do we expect it to come true? No, of course not. Never mistake a dream for a wish. Dreams are achievable, but only if you exert effort and are dedicated enough to achieve it. To some people, their dreams are their purpose. If you don't have a purpose in life or don't expect to fulfill it, what kind of life are you living?
By now, I think it's fair to say that dreams are goals or can be broken down into several goals. And goals can be planned for if your dream is concrete. I mean if your dream is, for example, to be rich, it would be more helpful if we qualify what "rich" means. If being rich for you means having $1,000,000.00 in the bank, then that's your end goal. Similarly, if your dream is to become president, well, it would be helpful if we became more specific. "I will be president of the Philippines by the year 2020," for example, is a specific goal. Once the goal is set, we know more on how to achieve it. In the case of acquiring $1,000,000 in the bank, well, we must obviously take steps to actualize that. In this case, we can break it down into several, smaller goals. Let's say that in order to achieve the $1,000,000 dollars, we should deposit $1,000 in the bank each month. Assuming no interest is earned, it'll take us 83 years to fulfill that goal. Is that too long? Well, let's say we deposit $2,000 in the bank each month. That'll take us over 42 years to reach our final goal. If working for 42 years is good enough for you, your immediate goal is to deposit $2,000 in the bank every month. I'm not saying that's easy, but it's definitely easier than getting that one million all in one go. If you're dedicated enough in achieving your dream, you have to start somewhere. Depositing $1 in the bank is better than not depositing at all. It's a small step, but a step forward nonetheless. Dreams shouldn't be wishes. We should take steps to actualize it. (On a side note, assuming there's a net interest of 2%, it'll take you 31 years to acquire $1,000,000 depositing $24,000 each year.) For me though, money matters has always been easy to calculate. More often than not, our dreams are difficult to quantify. For example, if your goal is to be a wealthy person, $1,000,000 won't achieve that; that's just a stepping stone and you need other avenues of income, whether it's writing that great novel, having a big business, or owning lots of real estate. Similarly, if your dream is to become president of the Philippines, well, there are several avenues to accomplish that. You could take the normal way of climbing up the political ladder such as running for mayor, senator, vice-president, and eventually the position of president, or perhaps you could take a different route, such as becoming a wealthy individual, or take up a career that gives you a lot of publicity. I'm not saying one method is better than the other, and sometimes, we won't know which is the most effective method until the day arrives to test it, but it's what we can come up with and is the only way we can measure our small successes, at least at this point in time.
Even if everyone breaks down their dreams into small goals, not everyone fulfills their dream. Why? Because it's difficult. No one ever associated dream fulfillment with being easy, at least not initially. There will always be hurdles when you pursue your dream. A lot will be asked from you. The question is, are you up to it? The problem I find with some people is that they think they're entitled to their dreams. A person, for example, might think he's entitled to wealth just because he's worked hard for the past few years. Well, a lot of people have worked hard for decades, and even they aren't rich. Or a writer might think that just because he's had two decades of education that he should get paid a lot for his writing. Well, sometimes even education isn't enough. Personally, I think if you want to fulfill your dreams, you need two things: effort and intelligence. The former is obvious: you'll never accomplish anything unless you exert effort. The latter is perhaps the less obvious one. Millions of people are working hard everyday, yet not all of them are fulfilling their dreams. The difference is not necessarily from their output but in the way they think. The cliche saying is that "there's more than one way to skin a cat". The same is true in attaining our goals. There are several vehicles to accomplish that. Of course not all of them are equal. Some methods are more efficient than others. That's where intelligence comes in, figuring out which is the most efficient method and which is the one appropriate for yourself. Sometimes, intelligence even finds a way to achieve the same results for lesser effort. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying effort is not needed. Rather, effort alone is insufficient. You need intelligence to back it up. But similarly, intelligence without action is also useless. That's why a combination of hard work and wisdom is the most effective method. But of course, both factors won't come naturally to you. It's something you need to learn, something you need to develop in yourself.
Another thing that irks me is when people assume that they'll attain their dreams without personal growth or sacrifice. Everything has a price. If you want your dream badly enough, you'll pay that price. I have writer friends whose dream is to write that great novel or playwright. Thus they participate in workshops and revisions. Why workshops? Because you get criticism there. Criticism is never easy, especially to sensitive people, but it's a necessary process. Why? Because that's one of the ways you'll discover your mistakes or how your work can be improved. In a way, that's also why there are editors. Editors help writers nurture and develop their work. That involves the occasional criticism or pointing out errors or passages that can be improved upon. Some of my friends loathe criticism. Sometimes, it's not a process they want to undergo. For me, that's folly. At least that's so if they want to fulfill their dream. I don't think there's any writer who didn't receive some sort of criticism at one time or another. Sure, the more successful writers nowadays gain accolades from their peers, but even born geniuses aren't perfect. I'm sure when they were starting, they made mistakes or wrote things that didn't please people. I think the important thing is to keep on going and to keep on improving. Criticism in this case is part of the price you have to pay. Long hours editing your work or making revisions is also part of that price. Continual education, reading other works, and exposing yourself to new ideas and subject matter are also steps a good writer needs to undergo. In whatever you do, there will always be a cost. That leaves us with two kinds of mentalities: either it's "suffer now play later" or "play now suffer later". I can't say which one is better: it's your decision which one it'll be. But I have this word of advice: if you want to remain in your comfort zone and don't want to grow, you'll most likely choose the latter. And when that happens, most likely, you won't achieve a big dream. Dreams can change. You can always make your dream smaller. You can follow the advice of the people who tell you don't dream of doing this or that, or that you can't do it. You can always have easy dreams and do easy work. But if you want big dreams, be ready to pay the price.
Speaking of price, you don't necessarily have to pay everything. Obviously, there are some things we won't do. I, for example, won't do something I find unethical or immoral. If my goal was to become the president of a company, I won't resort to embezzling money in order to finance myself, nor would I have my rivals assassinated when there's an opening for promotion. I also wouldn't find ways to get my superiors into trouble just to make a vacancy open in the first place. Each of us has standards that we aren't willing to compromise. If that's the case, well, just find another method. In my example, there are other ways of climbing the corporate ladder, such as providing good output, waiting for the promotion, involving yourself in other projects with the company, volunteering your services, etc. Of course don't confuse this with not doing something that's uncomfortable for you. In the said scenario, it might be inconvenient for you to come home late and miss your favorite TV show just to do extra work. Or you might be sent to another country but you don't want to do so because you're unfamiliar with that nation and unwilling to learn the language. That's laziness and staying in your comfort zone. If this is your uncompromising standard, well, you need to reevaluate your dream. Dream something "convenient". If you want to fulfill a good dream, then you must be willing to give it proportionate time and effort as well. Go out of your comfort zone! It's usually in that way do we grow and become better people as well as expanding our skills and capabilities. But be sure to prioritize the things that you value as well be it your code of conduct, your family, or your friends. And do your research as well. Some of the things we don't want to comprise might just be things that we don't want to do. There are also a lot of misconceptions out there. For example, in the Philippines, many people believe that government officials, businessmen, and the police are corrupt and greedy. Not all of them are. Pursuing a career in government, business, or even law enforcement isn't evil. It's what you do with it that dictates what the results will be. You'll be envied, criticized, and ridiculed by other people, but sometimes, that's part of the price you have to pay. What's important is that you know your reasons for doing so and not what other people believe your reasons are.
Is it wrong to dream? Definitely not. But don't expect dreams to fulfill themselves. We need to exert time and effort to fulfill them. Our dreams always come at a price. The question is, are you willing to pay that price? Do you want your dream badly enough? What are you wiling to forego just to attain that goal? What you must do to achieve your dream isn't a question you ask other people, but rather something you must ask deep within yourself.
Here's my take on things. Is it wrong to dream big? No, of course not. If people didn't have big aspirations, then the human race wouldn't progress. I mean the reason why we have television sets, cars, airplanes, or even mobile phones is because someone at some time had a big vision. Were they ridiculed? I'm sure they were. And depending on the era, some people might even have been persecuted for their beliefs. Did they succeed? Well, perhaps not at the start. But obviously, we now have the convenience of modern technology, and somebody had to invent them. And it all begins with a dream. Of course having said that, I won't say dreaming big will be easy. In fact, it's painful, and sometimes, even dangerous. The larger your dream the more difficult it will be for you, especially if it's not something that has been accomplished before. I mean a century ago, people would probably believe you more if you said you were going to be president rather than walking on the moon. At the least the former has precedence, and somebody has to be president (although of course, the chances of you being that person was slim). Walking on the moon, on the other hand, is not something that was possible then (but of course, fast forward half a century later and walking on the moon is a feat that can be achieved). Perhaps that's why our friends and family sometimes discourages us from dreaming big. Because obviously, not everyone gets to achieve their dreams. And when you fail, it hurts; the bigger your dream, the more painful the experience. It's like building the Tower of Babel: the higher you ascend, the more devastating the fall. But that's not always the case. What usually drives people to dream big is the similarly big pay-off. More often than not, the bigger the risks you take or the more "impossible" the feat, the greater the reward.
Having said all that, what does it mean to dream? Well, if you don't want to get hurt, don't dream. Settle for less. It's much like courting someone: you can't get rejected if you don't try. Of course similarly, you won't get much excitement either. I don't think our friends and parents don't want us to dream. They just don't want us to dream big dreams, mainly because big dreams entails lots of hardship and suffering. And honestly, who wants hardship and suffering, especially when it happens to someone you care about? It's not that they don't want good things for you. In fact, it's possible to have good things in life by having not-so-big dreams. Sometimes, being average is good enough. Sure, you're not uncovering your full potential, but it also requires less of you. Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Being average, is well, safe. People will have different views about you, but in the long run, being average is the least dangerous. For example, take a look at kidnapping. Who do kidnappers kidnap? Usually those who have a high profile, either you're rich or you're famous (since some assume that just because you're famous means you're rich). If you're average, well, there's a good chance you or your family won't get kidnapped. Similarly, people won't pay much attention to you either. I mean who do people pay attention to? The extraordinary people, whether they're a celebrity, a politician, or the president of a company. Big dreams isn't for everyone. But I do believe having dreams (no matter how insignificant it might seem) is vital. It's what drives us to become more human, to be better people.
Of course just because we have dreams does not mean we will achieve them. Perhaps what I see wrong in the world is that people mistake dreams for wishes. We've all heard the statement "I want a family, a house and lot, and a car". Is that a dream or a wish? Well, if you're doing something about it, it's a dream. A dream is a goal, something you try to obtain. If you're not doing anything about it and doing the same old stuff you did before that doesn't bring you closer to it, well, it's a wish. Why a wish? Because it'll never be achieved short of outside interference (such as somebody suddenly bequeathing you his or her wealth, or someone gives you a check of millions of dollars on your birthday). Again, I'm not saying wishing is wrong. We all have wishes. Most of us wishes for world peace or to stop world hunger. Do we expect it to come true? No, of course not. Never mistake a dream for a wish. Dreams are achievable, but only if you exert effort and are dedicated enough to achieve it. To some people, their dreams are their purpose. If you don't have a purpose in life or don't expect to fulfill it, what kind of life are you living?
By now, I think it's fair to say that dreams are goals or can be broken down into several goals. And goals can be planned for if your dream is concrete. I mean if your dream is, for example, to be rich, it would be more helpful if we qualify what "rich" means. If being rich for you means having $1,000,000.00 in the bank, then that's your end goal. Similarly, if your dream is to become president, well, it would be helpful if we became more specific. "I will be president of the Philippines by the year 2020," for example, is a specific goal. Once the goal is set, we know more on how to achieve it. In the case of acquiring $1,000,000 in the bank, well, we must obviously take steps to actualize that. In this case, we can break it down into several, smaller goals. Let's say that in order to achieve the $1,000,000 dollars, we should deposit $1,000 in the bank each month. Assuming no interest is earned, it'll take us 83 years to fulfill that goal. Is that too long? Well, let's say we deposit $2,000 in the bank each month. That'll take us over 42 years to reach our final goal. If working for 42 years is good enough for you, your immediate goal is to deposit $2,000 in the bank every month. I'm not saying that's easy, but it's definitely easier than getting that one million all in one go. If you're dedicated enough in achieving your dream, you have to start somewhere. Depositing $1 in the bank is better than not depositing at all. It's a small step, but a step forward nonetheless. Dreams shouldn't be wishes. We should take steps to actualize it. (On a side note, assuming there's a net interest of 2%, it'll take you 31 years to acquire $1,000,000 depositing $24,000 each year.) For me though, money matters has always been easy to calculate. More often than not, our dreams are difficult to quantify. For example, if your goal is to be a wealthy person, $1,000,000 won't achieve that; that's just a stepping stone and you need other avenues of income, whether it's writing that great novel, having a big business, or owning lots of real estate. Similarly, if your dream is to become president of the Philippines, well, there are several avenues to accomplish that. You could take the normal way of climbing up the political ladder such as running for mayor, senator, vice-president, and eventually the position of president, or perhaps you could take a different route, such as becoming a wealthy individual, or take up a career that gives you a lot of publicity. I'm not saying one method is better than the other, and sometimes, we won't know which is the most effective method until the day arrives to test it, but it's what we can come up with and is the only way we can measure our small successes, at least at this point in time.
Even if everyone breaks down their dreams into small goals, not everyone fulfills their dream. Why? Because it's difficult. No one ever associated dream fulfillment with being easy, at least not initially. There will always be hurdles when you pursue your dream. A lot will be asked from you. The question is, are you up to it? The problem I find with some people is that they think they're entitled to their dreams. A person, for example, might think he's entitled to wealth just because he's worked hard for the past few years. Well, a lot of people have worked hard for decades, and even they aren't rich. Or a writer might think that just because he's had two decades of education that he should get paid a lot for his writing. Well, sometimes even education isn't enough. Personally, I think if you want to fulfill your dreams, you need two things: effort and intelligence. The former is obvious: you'll never accomplish anything unless you exert effort. The latter is perhaps the less obvious one. Millions of people are working hard everyday, yet not all of them are fulfilling their dreams. The difference is not necessarily from their output but in the way they think. The cliche saying is that "there's more than one way to skin a cat". The same is true in attaining our goals. There are several vehicles to accomplish that. Of course not all of them are equal. Some methods are more efficient than others. That's where intelligence comes in, figuring out which is the most efficient method and which is the one appropriate for yourself. Sometimes, intelligence even finds a way to achieve the same results for lesser effort. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying effort is not needed. Rather, effort alone is insufficient. You need intelligence to back it up. But similarly, intelligence without action is also useless. That's why a combination of hard work and wisdom is the most effective method. But of course, both factors won't come naturally to you. It's something you need to learn, something you need to develop in yourself.
Another thing that irks me is when people assume that they'll attain their dreams without personal growth or sacrifice. Everything has a price. If you want your dream badly enough, you'll pay that price. I have writer friends whose dream is to write that great novel or playwright. Thus they participate in workshops and revisions. Why workshops? Because you get criticism there. Criticism is never easy, especially to sensitive people, but it's a necessary process. Why? Because that's one of the ways you'll discover your mistakes or how your work can be improved. In a way, that's also why there are editors. Editors help writers nurture and develop their work. That involves the occasional criticism or pointing out errors or passages that can be improved upon. Some of my friends loathe criticism. Sometimes, it's not a process they want to undergo. For me, that's folly. At least that's so if they want to fulfill their dream. I don't think there's any writer who didn't receive some sort of criticism at one time or another. Sure, the more successful writers nowadays gain accolades from their peers, but even born geniuses aren't perfect. I'm sure when they were starting, they made mistakes or wrote things that didn't please people. I think the important thing is to keep on going and to keep on improving. Criticism in this case is part of the price you have to pay. Long hours editing your work or making revisions is also part of that price. Continual education, reading other works, and exposing yourself to new ideas and subject matter are also steps a good writer needs to undergo. In whatever you do, there will always be a cost. That leaves us with two kinds of mentalities: either it's "suffer now play later" or "play now suffer later". I can't say which one is better: it's your decision which one it'll be. But I have this word of advice: if you want to remain in your comfort zone and don't want to grow, you'll most likely choose the latter. And when that happens, most likely, you won't achieve a big dream. Dreams can change. You can always make your dream smaller. You can follow the advice of the people who tell you don't dream of doing this or that, or that you can't do it. You can always have easy dreams and do easy work. But if you want big dreams, be ready to pay the price.
Speaking of price, you don't necessarily have to pay everything. Obviously, there are some things we won't do. I, for example, won't do something I find unethical or immoral. If my goal was to become the president of a company, I won't resort to embezzling money in order to finance myself, nor would I have my rivals assassinated when there's an opening for promotion. I also wouldn't find ways to get my superiors into trouble just to make a vacancy open in the first place. Each of us has standards that we aren't willing to compromise. If that's the case, well, just find another method. In my example, there are other ways of climbing the corporate ladder, such as providing good output, waiting for the promotion, involving yourself in other projects with the company, volunteering your services, etc. Of course don't confuse this with not doing something that's uncomfortable for you. In the said scenario, it might be inconvenient for you to come home late and miss your favorite TV show just to do extra work. Or you might be sent to another country but you don't want to do so because you're unfamiliar with that nation and unwilling to learn the language. That's laziness and staying in your comfort zone. If this is your uncompromising standard, well, you need to reevaluate your dream. Dream something "convenient". If you want to fulfill a good dream, then you must be willing to give it proportionate time and effort as well. Go out of your comfort zone! It's usually in that way do we grow and become better people as well as expanding our skills and capabilities. But be sure to prioritize the things that you value as well be it your code of conduct, your family, or your friends. And do your research as well. Some of the things we don't want to comprise might just be things that we don't want to do. There are also a lot of misconceptions out there. For example, in the Philippines, many people believe that government officials, businessmen, and the police are corrupt and greedy. Not all of them are. Pursuing a career in government, business, or even law enforcement isn't evil. It's what you do with it that dictates what the results will be. You'll be envied, criticized, and ridiculed by other people, but sometimes, that's part of the price you have to pay. What's important is that you know your reasons for doing so and not what other people believe your reasons are.
Is it wrong to dream? Definitely not. But don't expect dreams to fulfill themselves. We need to exert time and effort to fulfill them. Our dreams always come at a price. The question is, are you willing to pay that price? Do you want your dream badly enough? What are you wiling to forego just to attain that goal? What you must do to achieve your dream isn't a question you ask other people, but rather something you must ask deep within yourself.
Monday, January 10, 2005
The Fool
I'm an idiot, an ignorant buffoon. But so are you. Don't get me wrong. We're all knowledgeable and wise in one field or another. But there will always be a subject in which we are unfamiliar with. If there is anything universal, it is ignorance. When we're born, there's a lot we don't know. We don't know that a world exist, we don't really know the pain and discomfort it takes our parents to care for us, and we don't even know who we really are. Yet somehow, as we mature and grow older, we slowly gather more information and we become less ignorant (or at least we think so). The question I want to ask is what drives us to do this? Some might argue that curiosity may be innate yet when I look around, I see people who stop looking for answers, people who think that they know everything there is to know about the world, or people who are simply tired of finding an explanation for things. So, what really motivates people to learn?
I lived under a household that said one thing and did another. When I was a child, my parents praised me for my curiosity. When I asked about this and that, they'd smile and tell all their friends that I was an inquisitive and growing child. Of course when I demanded answers, that's where they faltered. They returned the question to me: "Why are you asking?" or "Why do you want to find out?". Later on, it became apparent to me that the only time they returned the question was when they were unwilling to give me the answers to my question, because they either thought it was too complicated for me to understand (such as when I ask them what the nature of their business was), or they weren't willing to divulge it (like how much they were earning). As to why I was asking the questions, I think the answer is obvious. Because I'm ignorant, and I know it! There's a lot of things I don't know and I was on a search to find out the answers to my questions. Several years later and I still find myself ignorant of such matters. Yet what surprises me (and humiliates me) is why I've stopped asking those questions even when I'm not any more knowledgeable now than I was years before. And this is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to myself but to other people as well. Why do we stop asking questions? One reason (and perhaps not the only one) is because our society discourages asking questions. My philosophy teachers marvel at the curiosity of the child: why is the sky blue? Why is the world round? What is love? It might seem like a ridiculous question to adults, yet it's a question that philosophers ponder on and on. They might never arrive at a definite answer but it's the search that matters, the personal development and insight that arises from such exploration. Yet the questions these philsophers ask are sometimes no different from the questions we as children ask. The former get acclaim for it, yet the latter were merely ridiculed, or worse, ignored. So does it really surprise you that in our society, curiosity may be praised, but deep down, it's not really encouraged (or is out of place in the realm of adults).
School is supposed to be a place of learning. Yet for most of time I was in grade school and high school, me and my fellow students kept asking this question: why am I being taught this? Perhaps the biggest failure of schools is that knowledge is forced on the students. I'm sure a lot of you hate math. Perhaps you would dislike it less if it wasn't something that you feared (which arises from the fear one feels when we hear the words "quizzes" or "exams") or if it wasn't something you were coerced into learning (Math is a subject taught five times a day, whether you wanted it or not). Personally, I more or less liked math, not only because I had a limited proficiency in it, but rather because I saw the practical purpose. I mean I'd be at the mercy of the salesmen and women if I didn't know my arithmetic. Statistics and probability has always aided me in my decisions with the risk vs. rewards argument. And since we were kids at that time, we dared to ask our parents and teachers why needed to learn this or that subject. More often than not, they did not give us answers that satisfied us. Which I think is the root of most of the problems any teacher faces. Students aren't stupid. They just don't have enough motivation to learn a particular subject, especially when you fail to give them an answer that they can grasp, and can fully appreciate.
Of course failing that, perhaps our next natural instict is to ask whether doing this particular activity is fun or not. As I mentioned earlier, doing Math is not something pleasant for most people. It's difficult and requires effort. But so does playing sports and playing video games. Time and effort are exerted into it. Sometimes, it's not even pleasant. What's the difference? For most people, doing math isn't fun (although obviously, there are exceptions and some people find enjoyment in math). Playing sports and video game is the opposite. In fact, we usually associate the word "playing" with sports and video games. When did we last associate "play" with math? Or any other subject we loathed for that matter? Our mental perspective on things plays an integral part as well. Perhaps if we associated "math" with "play" more often (or presented it in such a way that doing math was an enjoyable game), more people would like it.
During high school and sometimes when I meet older people, I get the "I-know-it-all" mentality. Don't get me wrong. These people aren't arrogant (at least outwardly). In fact, they may be meek people who are silent and don't reply unless asked. But these kind of people think that they don't need to do anything else and that they have all the tools and skills necessary to fulfill all their dreams in life. I have classmates who think "whether I pass or fail in this subject doesn't matter since we have a family business and that's where I'll end up no matter what my degree is". Obviously, if you have that kind of mentality, learning stops being a priority, especially when you're asked to go out of your comfort zone. Or I meet people who think that there's nothing else to be learned, especially from the likes of me, someone who's younger and lacks their experience. Any comments or suggestions I have are patronized, but aren't really taken into consideration. Or worse, people with "'I don't understand it'/'I never learned' it so it's probably not important". I'm not saying that kind of scenario is never true but hey, the world is changing and new discoveries and being made every day. How can I say this or that isn't important unless I investigate it? It's like saying this book or that movie is good/bad without seeing it for yourself.
There's also one thing that stops us from finding the answers to our questions. The fact that we might be wrong. And hey, I can sympathize. No one wants to make mistakes. I've humiliated myself several times, all the while thinking that I had the right answer when the truth was that the opposite was true. A perfect example is during oral participation in class. The teacher would ask a question and I'd raise my hand to answer their question. Guess what, my answer was wrong! I may have been disgraced but from then on, I knew what the right answer was (or at least my previous answer was the wrong one). Personally, knowledge and wisdom comes before pride. And let's face it, sometimes, the only times we really learn is when we make mistakes. So my advice is that we shouldn't be afraid to make mistakes. Yes, hate and loathe making mistakes. That'll give you more incentive to search for the right answers harder. But in the end, more often than not, we won't know whether we can do something, whether something is right or not, unless we try. And it's in the trying that we grow, become better people, and learn. We might make mistakes and more often than not, we will make mistakes. No one can guarantee a 100% risk-free experience. And so while we can whine about our failures, or worse, get into a situation where we have regrets and think of what-if scenarios, sometimes, it's best to dive into the thick of things and learn from our errors.
Failure can also wear us down. The reason I stopped asking questions from my parents was because I never got answers. Well, there's nothing I can offer to remedy that. The best advice I can give is to try and try. Be more stubborn than what fate deals you. Right now, I continue to ask my parents questions despite their previous track record. They're more or less consistent with their track record of not giving me answers but from time to time, they do give me insights. Persistence is sometimes the key. If you don't get it right the first time, sometimes, you'll get it at the hundredth time. It's not much for consolation, but hey, it's better than not getting answers at all. The only thing I can guarantee you is that if you don't ask, you'll never get an answer. At least if you do ask, no matter how small that chance is, there's always a chance. And if you studied your probabilities, your chance might be one in a million, but people do win lotteries.
Lastly, there's desperation. Perhaps one of my best example was when I was studying. Normally, the teacher gives you a lot of time to write a term paper. Of course writing term papers usually means research. If you're given half a year, it's a tendency of mine to be relaxed at the first month. I'm not out to get as much information as I can. In fact, when it's offered to me, I sometimes decline. Yet as the months pass by, the deadline looms closer and closer. That's when I start to get desperate. I scramble for information and data, even if it would be inconvenient for me. I have a set goal and I give everything I can just to fulfill that goal. In this case, it's learning and gathering information. But desperation for learning only works if you think the goal is worth it. For example, if you don't think passing or failing a particular subject is important, then you won't be desperate. But if it is something you deem important and your chances seem to be dwindling, you suddenly accept that fact and soak up information like a sponge. If anything was hindering you before, it's less of a hindrance now. Why? Because you have the mentality of the fool, someone who knows that he or she doesn't know anything. And thus one becomes more teachable, one gains the motivation to learn and to grow.
I'm not saying that there aren't brilliant people in the world, or even that you're not talented or wise. But if you are as good as you say you are, then you shouldn't be complacent. Stagnation is the worst enemy of geniuses. There must be continual growth and evolution. And perhaps the only way that can be achieved is by continuing to learn. And by learning, we thus grow and live.
I lived under a household that said one thing and did another. When I was a child, my parents praised me for my curiosity. When I asked about this and that, they'd smile and tell all their friends that I was an inquisitive and growing child. Of course when I demanded answers, that's where they faltered. They returned the question to me: "Why are you asking?" or "Why do you want to find out?". Later on, it became apparent to me that the only time they returned the question was when they were unwilling to give me the answers to my question, because they either thought it was too complicated for me to understand (such as when I ask them what the nature of their business was), or they weren't willing to divulge it (like how much they were earning). As to why I was asking the questions, I think the answer is obvious. Because I'm ignorant, and I know it! There's a lot of things I don't know and I was on a search to find out the answers to my questions. Several years later and I still find myself ignorant of such matters. Yet what surprises me (and humiliates me) is why I've stopped asking those questions even when I'm not any more knowledgeable now than I was years before. And this is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to myself but to other people as well. Why do we stop asking questions? One reason (and perhaps not the only one) is because our society discourages asking questions. My philosophy teachers marvel at the curiosity of the child: why is the sky blue? Why is the world round? What is love? It might seem like a ridiculous question to adults, yet it's a question that philosophers ponder on and on. They might never arrive at a definite answer but it's the search that matters, the personal development and insight that arises from such exploration. Yet the questions these philsophers ask are sometimes no different from the questions we as children ask. The former get acclaim for it, yet the latter were merely ridiculed, or worse, ignored. So does it really surprise you that in our society, curiosity may be praised, but deep down, it's not really encouraged (or is out of place in the realm of adults).
School is supposed to be a place of learning. Yet for most of time I was in grade school and high school, me and my fellow students kept asking this question: why am I being taught this? Perhaps the biggest failure of schools is that knowledge is forced on the students. I'm sure a lot of you hate math. Perhaps you would dislike it less if it wasn't something that you feared (which arises from the fear one feels when we hear the words "quizzes" or "exams") or if it wasn't something you were coerced into learning (Math is a subject taught five times a day, whether you wanted it or not). Personally, I more or less liked math, not only because I had a limited proficiency in it, but rather because I saw the practical purpose. I mean I'd be at the mercy of the salesmen and women if I didn't know my arithmetic. Statistics and probability has always aided me in my decisions with the risk vs. rewards argument. And since we were kids at that time, we dared to ask our parents and teachers why needed to learn this or that subject. More often than not, they did not give us answers that satisfied us. Which I think is the root of most of the problems any teacher faces. Students aren't stupid. They just don't have enough motivation to learn a particular subject, especially when you fail to give them an answer that they can grasp, and can fully appreciate.
Of course failing that, perhaps our next natural instict is to ask whether doing this particular activity is fun or not. As I mentioned earlier, doing Math is not something pleasant for most people. It's difficult and requires effort. But so does playing sports and playing video games. Time and effort are exerted into it. Sometimes, it's not even pleasant. What's the difference? For most people, doing math isn't fun (although obviously, there are exceptions and some people find enjoyment in math). Playing sports and video game is the opposite. In fact, we usually associate the word "playing" with sports and video games. When did we last associate "play" with math? Or any other subject we loathed for that matter? Our mental perspective on things plays an integral part as well. Perhaps if we associated "math" with "play" more often (or presented it in such a way that doing math was an enjoyable game), more people would like it.
During high school and sometimes when I meet older people, I get the "I-know-it-all" mentality. Don't get me wrong. These people aren't arrogant (at least outwardly). In fact, they may be meek people who are silent and don't reply unless asked. But these kind of people think that they don't need to do anything else and that they have all the tools and skills necessary to fulfill all their dreams in life. I have classmates who think "whether I pass or fail in this subject doesn't matter since we have a family business and that's where I'll end up no matter what my degree is". Obviously, if you have that kind of mentality, learning stops being a priority, especially when you're asked to go out of your comfort zone. Or I meet people who think that there's nothing else to be learned, especially from the likes of me, someone who's younger and lacks their experience. Any comments or suggestions I have are patronized, but aren't really taken into consideration. Or worse, people with "'I don't understand it'/'I never learned' it so it's probably not important". I'm not saying that kind of scenario is never true but hey, the world is changing and new discoveries and being made every day. How can I say this or that isn't important unless I investigate it? It's like saying this book or that movie is good/bad without seeing it for yourself.
There's also one thing that stops us from finding the answers to our questions. The fact that we might be wrong. And hey, I can sympathize. No one wants to make mistakes. I've humiliated myself several times, all the while thinking that I had the right answer when the truth was that the opposite was true. A perfect example is during oral participation in class. The teacher would ask a question and I'd raise my hand to answer their question. Guess what, my answer was wrong! I may have been disgraced but from then on, I knew what the right answer was (or at least my previous answer was the wrong one). Personally, knowledge and wisdom comes before pride. And let's face it, sometimes, the only times we really learn is when we make mistakes. So my advice is that we shouldn't be afraid to make mistakes. Yes, hate and loathe making mistakes. That'll give you more incentive to search for the right answers harder. But in the end, more often than not, we won't know whether we can do something, whether something is right or not, unless we try. And it's in the trying that we grow, become better people, and learn. We might make mistakes and more often than not, we will make mistakes. No one can guarantee a 100% risk-free experience. And so while we can whine about our failures, or worse, get into a situation where we have regrets and think of what-if scenarios, sometimes, it's best to dive into the thick of things and learn from our errors.
Failure can also wear us down. The reason I stopped asking questions from my parents was because I never got answers. Well, there's nothing I can offer to remedy that. The best advice I can give is to try and try. Be more stubborn than what fate deals you. Right now, I continue to ask my parents questions despite their previous track record. They're more or less consistent with their track record of not giving me answers but from time to time, they do give me insights. Persistence is sometimes the key. If you don't get it right the first time, sometimes, you'll get it at the hundredth time. It's not much for consolation, but hey, it's better than not getting answers at all. The only thing I can guarantee you is that if you don't ask, you'll never get an answer. At least if you do ask, no matter how small that chance is, there's always a chance. And if you studied your probabilities, your chance might be one in a million, but people do win lotteries.
Lastly, there's desperation. Perhaps one of my best example was when I was studying. Normally, the teacher gives you a lot of time to write a term paper. Of course writing term papers usually means research. If you're given half a year, it's a tendency of mine to be relaxed at the first month. I'm not out to get as much information as I can. In fact, when it's offered to me, I sometimes decline. Yet as the months pass by, the deadline looms closer and closer. That's when I start to get desperate. I scramble for information and data, even if it would be inconvenient for me. I have a set goal and I give everything I can just to fulfill that goal. In this case, it's learning and gathering information. But desperation for learning only works if you think the goal is worth it. For example, if you don't think passing or failing a particular subject is important, then you won't be desperate. But if it is something you deem important and your chances seem to be dwindling, you suddenly accept that fact and soak up information like a sponge. If anything was hindering you before, it's less of a hindrance now. Why? Because you have the mentality of the fool, someone who knows that he or she doesn't know anything. And thus one becomes more teachable, one gains the motivation to learn and to grow.
I'm not saying that there aren't brilliant people in the world, or even that you're not talented or wise. But if you are as good as you say you are, then you shouldn't be complacent. Stagnation is the worst enemy of geniuses. There must be continual growth and evolution. And perhaps the only way that can be achieved is by continuing to learn. And by learning, we thus grow and live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)