Into the Wild - Alone

Personally, I don't mind spending time alone. I actually like it. However, deciding to be alone as Chris did, seems a little scary to me. I'm still trying to realize that being alone doesn't necessarily mean you are lonely, but to purposely remove yourself from society for an undecided amount of time is just like the ultimate step to loneliness.

Why would anyone want to live completely alone anyways? I understand that the journey everyone takes to find themselves is alone but not always actually alone. Besides, Chris didn't have a set amount of time that he wished to stay in Alaska, which meant he could have wanted to stay there forever. His goal was to make it to Alaska and I'm happy for him that he completed his goal, but he also thought that living alone would make him happy. I don't necessarily agree with this because his happiest moments were with people, not by himself.

Comparing this story to Siddhartha, Siddhartha completed his journey alone (as he made his own decisions and didn't follow other people), but at the end of his journey he stayed with the ferryman. When he found happiness, he didn't find it from isolating himself from people but by accepting the presence someone else.

Thankful for a Classmate

I am thankful for my classmate, Deja Jenkins. We've been friends for a while and I'm glad that I have a class with her considering I haven't for a long time. She's really goofy, and half the time I can't take her seriously, but in this class she has said some pretty insightful things. I've learned from her that sometimes you don't have to care about everything. We both say stupid things to each other, so I would like to think we have a similar sense of humor. She is really talented at the things she loves like theater and writing (even though she may not admit it), and she has this admirable sense of "I don't care". At the end of the day, I'm thankful that I met her and I will miss her next year.

We Still Haven’t Figured This Out Yet

We still haven’t figured out that education is the best investment we can make as a country. As smaller communities and individual families, we realize that education is one of the best choices to make for success. However, American society doesn’t demonstrate that.

Honestly, if America valued education over capitalism and profit growth, college wouldn’t nearly be as expensive as it is now. If more people could afford college, more people would graduate with degrees and such, and be certified for careers and even further specialized studies. I really wouldn’t be surprised if our universities have the highest tuitions in the world.

If America put more value on education and learning, perhaps more people would aim to become teachers and researchers rather than business people and doctors. It’s clearly evident that our country implies that the best way to become successful is either through being a business person or a doctor—and let’s be honest, even the healthcare field is a business itself.

It seems so selfish to believe that success is wealth, and that wealth is what leads to a progressive country. We should contemplate about how we want society to be like generations from now, and how we can contribute to developing it as a better place to live in. Advancement doesn’t come having more capital, it comes from having more knowledge.

How Do I Know What I Know?

Most of the knowledge we get comes from learning and experience. What we learn can be something taught at school or an idea drilled into our heads by society or even our families. This kind of knowledge, the knowledge that is passed on to us, maybe not necessarily be “true” or “right” but it’s still what we know. The knowledge we gain directly comes from experiences we have.

I think the knowledge we get from learning and experience is only half of what we know. The other way we come to know things is through assuming. Again, our assumptions may not be (and most likely won’t be) true, but it’s still a part of what we know.

Assumptions come from both learning and experience, so really, the way we come to know things is through the ideas that we already have. From previous knowledge, every person has their own sense of “logic” to create and reason their assumptions.

Just for an example…

I think it’s safe to say that most Americans haven’t been to the Middle East recently, yet most will assume that it’s not the safest place to be in right now. We haven’t actually been to these countries, but from watching the news, reading articles, and hearing about all of the current conflicts in the region, “logically” it would seem to be an unsafe in environment to be in.

This isn’t something I know to be true, but it’s just something I know…

The Garden State

When I think of a Garden State, I imagine a community that resembles a garden. A good garden wouldn't be something exceptionally big, so the community would be fairly small. Gardens are supposed to be maintained and tended so there wouldn't be any weeds, or in the case of a community, no evils or negative values. And all gardens are taken care of by something, so this community has a government that actuals cares for the people. To me, a Garden State is any community where people get along and live happy, simple lives.

What I got from Candide is that a Garden State is a place where people work constantly for the sole purpose of staying occupied. Because there is no specific end goal and everyone has their own roles, there is no competition, jealously, anger or as the old man put it, "boredom, vice, and need" (pg. 98).

I don't know if I agree that this lifestyle is the right way to live. The fact that everyone just works to fulfill their roles seems repetitive and boring. Maybe because I live today's society, I believe that challenges and goals add to a well rounded and happy life. I think that accomplishing something gives people happiness, and I don't see a problem with competition.

On the other hand, in earlier and more primitive human lifestyles, people hunted and gathered or farmed. They just worked, worked, worked, and worked. The work created roles for everyone in the community, and going by the philosophy of Candide's ending, these people had happy, negative-free lives. I don't know if Voltaire's believes in the Garden State portrayed in the book, but I can't believe it. I think people are too complex to just sit as plants do, repeat the same tasks everyday, and still have happy and fulfilling lives.

Candide's Punishments, Do They Fit the Crime?

I don't think Candide really deserved any of his punishments. Candide is not just a naive person, but he is also kind of stupid for not realizing that Pangloss's logic is completely wrong. Even Cunégonde was able to realize that Pangloss's philosophy was wrong, yet Candide continued to just believe it, regardless of what life literally put in front of him.

Any ways, I can't really blame Candide for doing most of the wrong things that he did. In the beginning, on of his punishments was being forced into the Bulgar army. But he had he done nothing wrong. He only agreed with the two men (unknowingly) that he liked the Bulgar King, and this was  because they provided him with food. Most of the punishments Candide received were from actions he committed without knowing that they were wrong or immoral. For example when he was on the boat during the storm, he didn't rescue the Anabaptist (even though he had every intention to do so) because Pangloss convinced him that the Anabaptists was supposed to drown.

The only punishment that I see fit for him, is when he lost most of his treasures and his sheep from El Dorado to the merchant. He deserved that punishment because he took advantage of the King's generosity by taking a vast amount of valuables. In this situation, he let greed get the best of him. However, all in all, I think Candide is a genuinely good person. His stupidity and Pangloss's influences are what blocks him from truly understand which actions are right and wrong, and I don't believe he will deserve any punishments until he realizes what he's being punished for.

The Modern Gadfly

To be honest, I don't watch talk shows or follow any news programs, so I am not familiar with actual people who may bring up societal problems as gadflies might. Socrates was a gadfly because he was able to criticize the status quo of his society while getting others to realize the problem(s) as well. And so I guess him influencing how people viewed the government, lead to his death. Our society is substantially larger than that of ancient Athens. Maybe this is too literal, but I think its fair to say that Socrates had a smaller crowd to influence than someone might in present day America. Because of that, I don't think there is one person who can be a modern gadfly. Instead I think that groups and organizations are the gadflies that expose problems to people and promote change. The only gadfly group that I can think of right now would be Anonymous. I don’t really know much about them except that they are an anonymous group of hackers who dislike certain government and corporate regulations. Whether or not they are a legitimate group, they do have a presence on the Internet. The thing is is that virtually anyone can join, so really whatever criticisms they have or any changes they want to bring about is open to anyone in society. 

The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living?

Honestly, I don’t think there is anyone living an “unexamined” life.

Of course I can’t speak for every single person, but really, who doesn’t wonder why they’re living, and who doesn’t spend time thinking about the future or any decision they have to make?

We can say that someone living a repetitive life—waking up, going to work/school, returning home—has an unexamined life. We can easily judge and say bums hanging on the street or not contributing to society don’t question life either. We can even say, people in control who abuse their power by exploiting others or taking lives, don’t think twice about the people they are affecting. But we are only looking from the outside. I am not making an excuse for anyone’s actions, I’m just saying no one can assume that these people never stop to wonder what they are really doing with their lives.

Anyways, who’s in the position to judge people and determine if their lives are worth living? How can anyone do that when we are all looking to find our purpose in the world and our significance to humanity? What really should be of importance is not how people think of life (or the things and factors in it), but how they approach and respond to the problems they examine.

To me, examining life is to question life itself, yourself, others, and problems in the world. Anyone can do that, and again, I think generally everybody does. However, not everyone makes changes based up their questionings, and I think that is what should be considered when deciding if a life is “worth living”.