A reflection on NPR's This I believe There is More to Life than My Life.
This essay shows how when a family's cat dies, Jamaica Ritcher has to find a way to explain to her daughter what happens when we die. The author has no real beliefs about death until after her cat dies, but she is forced to search for an answer she can explain to her daughter.
"I am not the lonely human, plunked down on earth to aimlessly wander. I am a part of that earth and not going anywhere... Life, death: both are all around me, within my every breath."
In discovering her belief, Jamaica Ritcher finds a sense of peace and connectedness to everything in the world. This idea of being connected and all "part of the earth" links back to the Singer Solution to World Poverty Essay. The Singer essay argues that every choice that we make could potentially determine someone else's life. What we do or don't do here, today, could end up killing 10 children in some overseas country. The NPR essay on the other hand, says that if we are not connected by our actions then at least we are connected by the fact that we are human beings. We all get this short chance to live and we all die in the end. We are all of the earth and one day we will all return to it.
"Let children walk with Nature, let them see the beautiful blendings and communions of death and life, their joyous inseparable unity, as taught in woods and meadows, plains and mountains and streams of our blessed star, and they will learn that death is stingless indeed, and as beautiful as life." John Muir
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Funeral for a Friend
So today I went to a funeral for one of my friend's grandfather. This made me think about one of the podcasts I looked at called "Always Go to the Funeral". This essay talks about a woman whose father always made her go to funerals although she never wanted to. He told her to "go for the family" and I guess that's the same reason I went today.
I never could understand why you would go to the funeral of someone you have never met before in your life. My mother took me to the funeral of her cousin once and I can remember walking through the condolence line and not knowing a single person in it. She introduced me to everyone and I said I was sorry and tried to look sympathetic. They all seemed so far away from me, like this death somehow separated us from connecting.
I never could understand why you would go to the funeral of someone you have never met before in your life. My mother took me to the funeral of her cousin once and I can remember walking through the condolence line and not knowing a single person in it. She introduced me to everyone and I said I was sorry and tried to look sympathetic. They all seemed so far away from me, like this death somehow separated us from connecting.
I guess I dislike going to funerals because I never know what to say to all of those strangers. The template is to say "I'm sorry" or "I'm sorry for your loss" and then move on to the next person, but these two words seem to lack the depth expected when someone dies. In the essay, Deidre Sullivan reasons that the little inconveniences or the two word sympathy sayings are enough. The act of showing up is what is important because it shows that we care.
"Life is about not knowing, having to change, taking the moment and making the best of it, without knowing what's going to happen next. Delicious Ambiguity." Gilda Radner
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Fate
At school on Friday, I was trying to help a friend write an essay about the Singer Solution. Her teacher had given her a series of questions to discuss in the paper and the first one kind of stood out to me. The question was something like "Is everything a matter of choice?".
This got me thinking, everyone wants to have control over their lives. We grow up believing that we can do anything or be anything that we want to be. We have to believe that we have some control or else people would be hopelessly lost. It's hard to think that everything is a matter of choice when you take a good look at the world. If people could choose what would happen to them, the world would be perfect and people would be happy all the time. There would be no poverty or disease, and people would only die if they got bored of living.
The reality is that life is unpredictable. You get thrown into a set of circumstances and you have to work with whatever you're given. No one asks to be poor or sick, they are because fate picks them. Perhaps the only choices that people do get to make are what they do after fate decides their situation. Every choice that is made could be because of fate. On the other hand, maybe life is so hard because people do have choices. What if the choices we make really do matter but people just make the wrong decisions.
I guess you can never really know for sure if there is such a thing as fate. I believe that there is fate and sometimes it hates us and sometimes it doesn't. We can believe what we want and try to make all the right choices, but sometime fate just wins. Fate wins despite of the choices and when that happens you just go wherever fate leads you.
“Fate is like gravity. You can jump up and down until your heart’s content, but the earth still falls into the sun, and the sun still courses through the galaxy, both indifferent to your short-lived and insignificant defiance.”
This got me thinking, everyone wants to have control over their lives. We grow up believing that we can do anything or be anything that we want to be. We have to believe that we have some control or else people would be hopelessly lost. It's hard to think that everything is a matter of choice when you take a good look at the world. If people could choose what would happen to them, the world would be perfect and people would be happy all the time. There would be no poverty or disease, and people would only die if they got bored of living.
The reality is that life is unpredictable. You get thrown into a set of circumstances and you have to work with whatever you're given. No one asks to be poor or sick, they are because fate picks them. Perhaps the only choices that people do get to make are what they do after fate decides their situation. Every choice that is made could be because of fate. On the other hand, maybe life is so hard because people do have choices. What if the choices we make really do matter but people just make the wrong decisions.
I guess you can never really know for sure if there is such a thing as fate. I believe that there is fate and sometimes it hates us and sometimes it doesn't. We can believe what we want and try to make all the right choices, but sometime fate just wins. Fate wins despite of the choices and when that happens you just go wherever fate leads you.
“Fate is like gravity. You can jump up and down until your heart’s content, but the earth still falls into the sun, and the sun still courses through the galaxy, both indifferent to your short-lived and insignificant defiance.”
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Water Buffalo and Singer Solution
My assignment today is to respond to a video and compare it to the Singer Solution to World Poverty essay. The video was about a man who bought a water buffalo and gave it away to a poor family in China. A water buffalo is an extremely useful gift as it can help the farming family work the fields or be used to feed the family for half of a year. I thought this video was incredibly moving, especially when it showed how much this family was affected by one water buffalo. For these people, the water buffalo that could easily be purchased by a middle-class American would cost a whole year's salary.
Compared to the Singer Solution to World Poverty essay, I thought this video put out the same message in a much more positive and much less aggressive form. In the video, the family that has been chosen to receive the water buffalo is in debt because they took out a loan for around $200 U.S. dollars. Ironically, the magic number in the Singer essay was $200 as he argued that this amount could save a child's life. It's interesting how two pieces that are essentially saying the same thing could stir such contrasting reactions.
The one thing I did not like about the Singer essay is that it criticized readers for not doing enough to help poverty in other countries. In Robert Thompson's video there was no information about helping some charity. The video merely demonstrated an act of giving and showed the effects of this action. Suprisingly enough, not being told to donate money made me want to go and help a family in China and donate a whole herd of water buffalo. I thought the video was more effective in getting its point across it showed a real example of how a donation can help the world. While the essay gave hypothetical examples and blamed Americans for world poverty, the video showed how one person could do something to improve the poverty situation. I think the two different impacts of the essay and the video can be summed up by the saying "actions speak louder than words". Peter Singer could write five essays about how we should combat world poverty, but it wouldn't hold a candle to the one simple video that shows an example of charity.
Another reason that the video does a better job of inspiring its viewers is that the video allows the audience to connect to the family and their situation. There are many people that have no idea what real poverty looks and to see the Su family's hardships makes the problem and also the solution much more tangible. The essay on the other hand is simply ideas and examples taken from books. Singer provides percentages and statistics but there is little warmth and heart to be found in the paper.
After examining the video and the essay these new questions were raised:
What would you give up to save the life of a stranger?
How important is the value of charity in our society?
How much should we give to others/Is it really the thought that counts?
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." -Winston Churchill
Compared to the Singer Solution to World Poverty essay, I thought this video put out the same message in a much more positive and much less aggressive form. In the video, the family that has been chosen to receive the water buffalo is in debt because they took out a loan for around $200 U.S. dollars. Ironically, the magic number in the Singer essay was $200 as he argued that this amount could save a child's life. It's interesting how two pieces that are essentially saying the same thing could stir such contrasting reactions.
The one thing I did not like about the Singer essay is that it criticized readers for not doing enough to help poverty in other countries. In Robert Thompson's video there was no information about helping some charity. The video merely demonstrated an act of giving and showed the effects of this action. Suprisingly enough, not being told to donate money made me want to go and help a family in China and donate a whole herd of water buffalo. I thought the video was more effective in getting its point across it showed a real example of how a donation can help the world. While the essay gave hypothetical examples and blamed Americans for world poverty, the video showed how one person could do something to improve the poverty situation. I think the two different impacts of the essay and the video can be summed up by the saying "actions speak louder than words". Peter Singer could write five essays about how we should combat world poverty, but it wouldn't hold a candle to the one simple video that shows an example of charity.
Another reason that the video does a better job of inspiring its viewers is that the video allows the audience to connect to the family and their situation. There are many people that have no idea what real poverty looks and to see the Su family's hardships makes the problem and also the solution much more tangible. The essay on the other hand is simply ideas and examples taken from books. Singer provides percentages and statistics but there is little warmth and heart to be found in the paper.
After examining the video and the essay these new questions were raised:
What would you give up to save the life of a stranger?
How important is the value of charity in our society?
How much should we give to others/Is it really the thought that counts?
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." -Winston Churchill
Monday, January 22, 2007
Singer Solution World Poverty
In class today we read an essay called The Singer Solution to World Poverty. In this essay the author, Peter Singer, uses a utilitarian view to analyze the enormous problem of world poverty. While I agree with the main message of this essay, some of the points are a bit far fetched. The paper gives a very black and white view of an incredibly complex subject.
Singer says that we should donate every cent that we do not need to these children dying overseas. He guilt trips us saying that because we Americans have an overly indulgent lifestyle, all of these children overseas are dying. "Now you, too, have the information you need to save a child's life. How should you judge yourself if you don't do it?" I thought the author came off sounding so condescending like he wants me to feel ashamed for going out to dinner instead of donating all the money to UNICEF. It seemed as if the author placed a lot of blame on the world. According to Singer's reasoning, world poverty is caused by people's uncharitable spirit. Therefore, we are all murderers for not donating our fortunes to charities. I get that giving money to unfortunate kids in other countries is a really good cause but writing an essay that accuses the readers of being responsible for the poverty in other countries is probably not the best way to get donations.
This paper basically examines the importance of taking care of yourself vs. taking care of those who are less fortunate. In this essay, Singer asks the questions "Are you therefore obliged to keep giving until you have nothing left? At what point can you stop?" Although he asks these two very important questions, he fails to give a concrete answer. He gives the example of Bob having his foot caught in the track and if letting the child die was morally correct if it saved his foot or leg. Singer never says that it's the "correct" choice to let the child die if it is to save his leg because I don't think the author himself knows where to draw that line. He takes the view point that any extra money should be spent to help overseas children, but I think that money also needs to be spent to ensure that you have a good life. I don't mean that you should spend all your money on a castle, but if you're living in a cardboard box so that you can feed a kid in Africa, I don't call that an improvement.
I would also like to find out what is it exactly that Mr. Singer considers a necessity. My family has three kids and all of us attend Punahou. Tuition is around $15,000 per person so my family spends $45,000 on tuition alone. This number is already 50% greater than Singer's estimated spending on necessities. With this tuition money, 225 children could be saved in overseas countries. However, I wonder if a philosopher, a thinker, like Peter Singer would think that an education qualified as a luxury or a necessity.
The author also degrades the United States for only donating .09% of their GDP to aid agencies compared to the .7% reccommended. While the percent of the United State's gross national product is smaller, the amount of money they actually donate is greater than a country like Denmark. Although the U.S. does not even donate "a tenth of Denmark's .97%," the United States actually contributes around 21 times more money than Denmark.
Although Singer attempts to blame poverty on an uncharitable nature and a lavish American lifestyle, it is blatant that his ideas would only work in a more utopic world, where the life of a child is a mere $200. While I'm sure that this essay was written with good intentions, it does more to belittle the good that is done through charity than inspire people to be more giving.
"the smallest good deed is better than the grandest intention"
Singer says that we should donate every cent that we do not need to these children dying overseas. He guilt trips us saying that because we Americans have an overly indulgent lifestyle, all of these children overseas are dying. "Now you, too, have the information you need to save a child's life. How should you judge yourself if you don't do it?" I thought the author came off sounding so condescending like he wants me to feel ashamed for going out to dinner instead of donating all the money to UNICEF. It seemed as if the author placed a lot of blame on the world. According to Singer's reasoning, world poverty is caused by people's uncharitable spirit. Therefore, we are all murderers for not donating our fortunes to charities. I get that giving money to unfortunate kids in other countries is a really good cause but writing an essay that accuses the readers of being responsible for the poverty in other countries is probably not the best way to get donations.
This paper basically examines the importance of taking care of yourself vs. taking care of those who are less fortunate. In this essay, Singer asks the questions "Are you therefore obliged to keep giving until you have nothing left? At what point can you stop?" Although he asks these two very important questions, he fails to give a concrete answer. He gives the example of Bob having his foot caught in the track and if letting the child die was morally correct if it saved his foot or leg. Singer never says that it's the "correct" choice to let the child die if it is to save his leg because I don't think the author himself knows where to draw that line. He takes the view point that any extra money should be spent to help overseas children, but I think that money also needs to be spent to ensure that you have a good life. I don't mean that you should spend all your money on a castle, but if you're living in a cardboard box so that you can feed a kid in Africa, I don't call that an improvement.
I would also like to find out what is it exactly that Mr. Singer considers a necessity. My family has three kids and all of us attend Punahou. Tuition is around $15,000 per person so my family spends $45,000 on tuition alone. This number is already 50% greater than Singer's estimated spending on necessities. With this tuition money, 225 children could be saved in overseas countries. However, I wonder if a philosopher, a thinker, like Peter Singer would think that an education qualified as a luxury or a necessity.
The author also degrades the United States for only donating .09% of their GDP to aid agencies compared to the .7% reccommended. While the percent of the United State's gross national product is smaller, the amount of money they actually donate is greater than a country like Denmark. Although the U.S. does not even donate "a tenth of Denmark's .97%," the United States actually contributes around 21 times more money than Denmark.
Although Singer attempts to blame poverty on an uncharitable nature and a lavish American lifestyle, it is blatant that his ideas would only work in a more utopic world, where the life of a child is a mere $200. While I'm sure that this essay was written with good intentions, it does more to belittle the good that is done through charity than inspire people to be more giving.
"the smallest good deed is better than the grandest intention"
Sunday, January 21, 2007
First Post
hi. my name is kristin keeno and this is the first post on my english weblog. the first thing i want to do is list the two essential questions of english 2.
what kind of world is this?
how do we live in this world?
through the semester i guess i will try to answer or at least examine some of the possible answers to these questions. i am also suppoosed to add some of my own essential questions so here they are.
what does is mean to be free?
what are we most afraid of?
why is there so much suffering in the world?
is there good and evil?
what is it to have faith?
ok i think that's enough questions for today. so uh... i think i'm going to put a quote of the day everytime i post so here's my first one.
"a prayer for the wild at heart kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams.
what kind of world is this?
how do we live in this world?
through the semester i guess i will try to answer or at least examine some of the possible answers to these questions. i am also suppoosed to add some of my own essential questions so here they are.
what does is mean to be free?
what are we most afraid of?
why is there so much suffering in the world?
is there good and evil?
what is it to have faith?
ok i think that's enough questions for today. so uh... i think i'm going to put a quote of the day everytime i post so here's my first one.
"a prayer for the wild at heart kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)