In response to Katy's "Dialectics" post about adversity vs. prosperity and how the delicate balance between them makes neither seem as attractive as the combination of the two.
You raise an interesting point when saying that prosperity isn't necessarily what people strive for, but more so the attaining of prosperity. It's interesting to see that people sometimes even prefer to face adversity just to be able to claim its victory after overcoming it. The thought of this makes me think of the phrase "take the high road" or "take the road less travelled," knowing that the reward at the end will justify any suffering that may have been incurred in the process. It sounds nice and noble to think this way, but when you consider your other option, sitting in comfortable content, it makes you wonder why anyone would ever choose adversity. That is until you have something like the movie the Matrix to show us that no matter the circumstances, people will always be able to find discontent and unhappiness, despite the fact that something deliberately tried to eliminate these from life. It may be that people are naturally inclined to seek dissatisfaction, but for what reason is the important question raised. Is it that we're prone to misery, and can't accept a life of guaranteed prosperity, or is it that we prefer to know our troubles well and overcome them naturally to achieve our deserved prosperity? I'd like to believe the latter, but nonetheless, it is interesting to see this dynamic of adversity and prosperity, and how they dually affect people in a (hopefully) symbiotic way
In response to Matthew's "Inconvenient Truth" detailing how the United States' (particularly charitable organizations like Invisible Children) intervention in crises in Central Africa is seen as western imperialism meddling in African affairs to some, while it comes off as completely justified and the right thing to do in other people's eyes
For starters, it's always interesting to see the many shades and lenses different people have for viewing the world and global affairs; what's charity for some is just short of aggression to others. That being said, when there are such opposing view like those brought up on polarized sides of the world, I usually find that the real story, or the most accurate way to perceive a situation is to find the shade of grey. In this case, we'd have be able to see that the actions taken by Invisible Children may seem a little intrusive to proud Central Africans who know the West's history of trying to control their affairs. While our motives have drastically shifted, from the land-grabbing brutes from 150 years ago, to upstanders for human rights, the fact is we are deliberately engaging in foreign matter that doesn't directly concern us as a country. That being said, the Africans should realize our shift and discern a helping (or maybe just concerned) hand from imperialism. Is it our duty to introduce our American muscles into an African conflict? Absolutely not. It would seem far worse, however, if we recognized a problem and stood idly by when we knew we could at least attempt to help stop it. Of course, I have a sort of skewed perspective myself, it would seem rude and un-called-for if the French all of a sudden decided to give every homeless person in America $100. So is it better to respect their nationalistic beliefs, or protect what we view as international human rights? The fact that the two are even confused sure is inconvenient, but from the outsider's point of view (seeing as I myself am in no position to make any executive decisions on the matter) I guess I can appreciate the fact that to make an informed and considerate decision, we have to be able to acknowledge the other sides point of view, and respect it to the extent that it needs to be respected. So maybe a few less 30 minute short films would help our cause, but with or without them, I suppose our first priority is always to do what's right. So long as it is right...
May 13, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment