Who is your hero? What makes a hero?

The definition of a hero is self-sacrifice. It is difficult to be a hero because it is difficult to be selfless. It is in everyone's own interest to be selfish and it is human nature and survival instinct to be selfish. This of course brings up the whole nothing-is-selfless argument, but that's a bunch of crap. Yes, nothing is selfless, but that is because one cannot act without the self. So, it's not a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing—it benefits the hero and those he helped! Benefiting yourself is not a bad thing. People need to get over that. But maybe that's my selfish and arrogant side coming out (but I don't consider those to be bad qualities).

Anyway, a hero is someone whose first instinct is to save or help others. He does not have ulterior motives and he doesn't do it for the glory. The best way to describe it would be humble, or modest. Being arrogant about skills is different than being arrogant about actions. Skills are great, but they do not make a hero. Actions come from emotions, while skills often push aside emotions to succeed.

A hero's selflessness can come from a sad past/an empathetic attitude towards suffering. This is an example of a self-connection, but a positive one. Understanding suffering on a personal level leads him to help those who are suffering.

A hero doesn't have to be smart, he can be blindly selfless. He can save others without considering the reason or consequence. Or a hero can be very smart, and realize that humanity as a whole needs heroes. He therefore becomes a hero because he feels it is logical to do so.

A hero does not have to physically save people, though that is a noble act of heroism. Heroes can save people from mental/emotional troubles, or be the organizers for charitable organizations, or a hero of the arts or academics. Mental heroism can again come from the hero's past. An understanding of emotions produces empathy. Being an organizer for a just cause is an indirect form of heroism. The hero uses her skills to help others; skills that might not otherwise be heroic. It is like leading a revolution—collecting people whose skills would be useful in heroic acts. A hero of the arts or academics is someone who took a risk for the sake of the subject. Caring for a study shows a general love for humanity—a trust that a discovery or idea will be utilized correctly one day. It can also demonstrate great bravery to go against others in the field.

And that brings us to bravery. Yes, heroes require bravery and it goes without saying that there are different kinds of bravery. There is a spectrum of visible and invisible bravery, and a spectrum of conscious and unconscious bravery. These correlate with the smart heroes who realize their heroism, and the mindless acts of heroism that happen because of the instinct to help others.

No books should be banned. Ever. There aren't subjects that are "inappropriate" for teenagers. Jesus.

And now, onto my philosophy on censorship. Music should not be censored. Fuck that. Bleeping out a curse word does not mean that it isn't there. Replacing "whore" with "girl" does not take away the degrading message. What we need is education about degrading/violent/whatever music. Much of it is satirical, which is a concept that can be taught to kids. Even the stuff that's not satirical can be explained by pointing out its ridiculousness and showing that's it's a lie and should not be taken seriously. Censoring "explicit" music means that it is being taken seriously, which it shouldn't be.

Most books with sex/violence/whatever present it in a non-glamorizing way. Think of all of the classics that have been banned—they are most certainly not the cause of promiscuity and street violence. The books that glamorize it—Gossip Girl, for example—have shitty plotlines and characters that shouldn't be taken seriously by young scholars.

Censorship in movies is bullshit, too. The unrealistic, covered-up Hollywood version of sex only makes it more taboo. It creates a subconscious aversion to seeing a female nipple, or any kind of crotch. Censorship makes sex into a much bigger deal than it is. The fact that many countries ban pornography altogether is ridiculous. People have sex everyday. It's not a big deal.

The problem of little kids being exposed to "explicit" material has a simple solution. Teach them. That's right, their little brains can handle a lot more than most think. They can be taught not to believe the media's perspective on sex, drugs, and violence.

As of right now, the way children are exposed to sex/drugs/violence typically goes as so: learn misinformation from the media, learn misinformation from peers (which they learned from the media), learn a small amount of information from parents, experiment, learn a slightly larger amount of information from school than from parents, continue experimenting. If we told them the whole truth in the first place, don't you think their experimentations would go awry less often?

We as a society are in denial of the capabilities and maturity of children. We resist exposing them to "adult" things for a long time, then we are shocked when they find out about them on their own, and misuse them.

On a side note, banning books from school libraries is completely ridiculous. Kids can just get the book elsewhere and banning the book will without a doubt make it more popular among students. Schools are a place to learn about the world, not about PTA-approved literature.

"Inappropriate" books are feared because adults think that they will make children imitate the books. To an uneducated mind, imitating anything that seems fun is appealing. However, an educated mind can decide for himself whether an action is a good idea, despite what a book conveys. Only those ignorant to its power will fall victim to the media.

November 14, 2009

Has your idea of the perfect romantic partner changed with age? Do you think we can teach ourselves to desire partners who are better for us or are we constrained by the laws of attraction?

While I never imagined the classic fairy-tale myth of love, I was overly optimistic as a young'n. I basically thought that finding the right person was the problem, and that there is a very small percentage of the population capable of "true love" (more on that later) and that the general population's problem was that they didn't belong to that elite group capable of true love. I saw the relationship mistakes of other and checked each off as "won't happen to me, I'm too smart for that." I thought that there was definitive truth to how relationships worked, that there were rules to follow and a concrete path that a relationship must pursue to be successful.

This probably explains my infatuation with a certain someone years ago. He had no flaws, and our friendship had no flaws. I was convinced that we were part of the elite, and destined for greatness if I ever were to actually pursue him.

By the way, this is all in retrospective. The elite group theory was subconscious, I am only now bringing it to the light. One theory that I was conscious of, however, was "true love." It was three things: permanent, exciting, and deep. (God, this is reminiscent of Twilight.) I'd never actually witnessed true love. Still haven't. It wasn't the marriages I'm familiar with—too much fighting and clash of personalities, really deep-seeded stuff that I can't imagine people didn't know when they signed up for this deal. It wasn't the relationships of my peers—not deep enough, it has to have a best-friend quality to it. It definitely wasn't the relationships in film and literature—the story is the pursuit, the ending the relationship. We don't actually see it.

So, I don't really know where I got my theory. But I had it. And I was patient. As I grew older, I considered watching everyone else date while I stood aside as a good thing—an opportunity to learn those sacred relationship rules.

In Freshman year Health Issues, we talked about love. Many, if not most, were pessimistic. They spoke of the failed marriages and relationships they see around them. They doubted the possibility of marriage—"How can you stay with the same person for so long? Things fall apart. They just do." I kept quiet. After all, they obviously weren't part of the elite. They knew no better.

Fast forward through a golden age, a reality check, a quasi-depression, a friendless summer, another golden age, a bff break-up, a one-friend era, and the [current] Buddies era. Now, I'm barely interested in even having a relationship. What's the point? It's like a friendship, but shitty. I've over this time span watched failing relationships and actually drawn a conclusion from that instead of just thinking myself part of the elite. My conclusion is that relationships suck. It's a generalization, it's pessimistic, it's the total opposite of what I used to think. But it's logical. As I learn more and more that all people suck, I learn that all relationships suck. And to quote the appropriate aphorism: "Across the board, across the board."

November 15, 2009

If you could have one extraordinary talent, what would you choose and why?

In order to choose the most useful talent, I would first have to consider my greatest weakness. I suppose that would be my lack of understanding emotions. So my power might be sympathy, or ability to comfort, or ability to empathize. Or I could take the selfish route and fix my social anxiety—my other great weakness (most likely correlated with the first). I guess the talent that would balance my anxiety would be... social ease? But am I aiming for normalcy, or great success? Does it have to be great success to count as an extraordinary talent? Is it immoral to get rid of my greatest weaknesses through magic? Shouldn't I work through them myself? Maybe I should only fix mild weaknesses. Hmmm... the ability to focus? Or maybe to run on no sleep? Or an incredible memory? Those are intriguing, and leading me into my next point.

Should this extraordinary talent be serious? Serious extraordinary talents can attract unwanted attention, give unwanted results, and change things in general. (My fear of change and memories of the Fairly Odd Parents are coming out.) A small extraordinary talent may be a better alternative.

There are many angles you can take this from. There is the superhero train of thought, of course. Flying, mind reading, x-ray vision, supersonic hearing, underwater breathing, invisibility, super strength, super speed, shape shifting, etc. are all good fun and such and can be analyzed one by one. But, there are other talents people might wish for. Skills—musical, athletic, artistic, literary, academic, gaming, handiwork, etc. can fall into another category. These demonstrate the person's long-term desires and goals, in short, their passions. What kind of person chooses a passion-based talent as opposed to a superhero-based talent? Or is it just a matter of the spectrum of talent—a big talent causes big change, a small talent causes small change—that would affect the choice? Which is which? Would a superhero talent affect your life more than an extraordinary skill? Or the other way around?

But we haven't even begun to cover every type of talent there is. What about downright trivial talents, such as licking one's elbow, whistling, being good at yo-yo-ing, basically any weird physical talent that can be shown off on the playground? And then there are interpersonal talents—relating to people (one of my potential picks), being a good flirt, being funny, being persuasive, being good at sex (does that count as athletic, too?) being a good conversationalist, being a good storyteller (that might fall into arts). Now we are getting into the thickets of crossovers in the categories. That's quite all right, though. The extraordinary talent need not belong in just one category.

What might be considered a separate category are business-related endeavors: being a good salesman, a good manager, a good public speaker, etc. And while these can fit into othe categories, they should be considered here. Do they mean that the wisher is greedy? Or just ambitious? Or unimaginative? Or just trying to help their families? Would this be the first reaction of some, or the later, wiser final decision?

The next category might not fit on the spectrum of change that can be used to categorize different talents: nerdy desires. Being magical, having the power to use The Force, or any of the infinite skills that go along with magic may be at the top of many wish lists. The technicalities get even stickier here. With other talents, the degree of talent and the ripple effect of it are a large concern. Here, we wonder how unworldly skills would be translated to the real world...or would the wisher just be transported into their own imaginations? Or perhaps to their true worlds?

Now that I've identified types, degrees, and the complexities of wishes, I must continue to decide on my own. I started with attempting to identify and fix my greatest weakness. Am I doing this backwards? Should I take my greatest strength and improve it? Or am I dancing dangerously close to the high end of the dramatic change spectrum? It might be safest to continue with my backwards first instinct and identify and fix my greatest weaknesses, fears, regrets, and future worries.

Let's see, I've decided that my weaknesses are my lack of emotions, and social anxiety. I should definitely include my control issues, high strung-ness, and perfectionism. Wow, those are definitely all related. Okay... are there any that are unrelated? Hmmm. Can't think of any.

Anyway, moving on to my greatest fears. My social anxiety covers a lot of it. Change belongs on the list, as demonstrated through most of this entry. I used to have a major fear of not noticing that I was missing out on something, and regretting it later. I think I've moved past that, and moved past regrets (besides the obvious). My other fears would probably just be the basic things-that-harm-people-I-care-about kind of fears. It's strange that I think of that pretty quickly now, that's not how I used to think. (PoA analysis reference.) I guess that's just because of the deep, open friendships I have now.

I've analyzed my fears, but I do I turn them into talents? Is bravery in the face of change a talent? I suppose it is, but I do feel like I already have it, and my fear of change is quite underlying.

Maybe the correct path for me would be a superhero talent. Or a skills talent. My first choice made sense, too, however. Relating to others is most certainly a talent. The pros of it would be incredible, and the cons would be minimal because I would choose to keep my talent as secretive as possible. And, obviously, the nerdy path is quite appealing.

In conclusion, I haven't decided. Is my indecisiveness a weakness? I don't know.

I guess that depends on how you define science. Science includes chemistry, biology, physics, etc. Basically, hypotheses proved by scientific method. But that only includes what humans know. Also, my rough definition of magic is that it is a power that defies scientific law. So, if I believe in magic, then no, not everything has a scientific explanation. But, maybe there is a greater understanding of science somewhere else (be it another planet or another time or another dimension) and maybe magic and scientific mysteries are all taken care of. Of course, that sounds close to utopian, so it's unlikely. Utopias can't really exist. But that's a-whole-nother topic.

On to my first point. I'm going to call science "Human Science" because really, as humans, that's all we know. I could go on to call it "Language Science" because it's communicated only through language or "Method Science" because it is all proved through a method. But let's not get into that. Don't want to go into parallel universe talk right now. Okay, so Human Science is fairly limited. Countless scientific mysteries, like blackholes and the beginning of the universe, and the paranormal, like mind reading and ghosts, show the great shortcomings of Human Science. But they could be temporary shortcomings. I tend to take a Lovegood stance and give mysteries the benefit of the doubt. So I can think of all of science's blanks as 'COMING SOON' signs, if I want. But does that satisfy my feelings towards science? Hmm... no.

Humans have studied the brain an awful lot, but I think we're biased. I'm not talking about scientists taking sides for personal reasons, I'm just pointing out that everyone who's ever studied brains has a brain, and is therefore limited. There has to be concepts that our brains can't grasp, or can't sense. How could we be so special that our brains could handle anything? Think about it this way-- we know that some animals have advantages over us. Cheetahs are faster, owls have better night vision, dogs have better sense of smell. What we can't accept is that any other species could have an intellectual advantage.

We would be awfully upset if we got a visit from aliens that were smarter than us. But would we know that they were smarter? How would they prove it? Math? They could teach us new math, as many human mathematicians have taught other humans before. But would that make them smarter? No, it would make them just another inventor, with the capacities of a human mathematician. What if they invented math that we couldn't understand? We would dismiss it as wrong, because they couldn't prove to us that it was right, because it is beyond our learning. We would just point out its flaws that we see, using our limited math knowledge capacity.

My final answer will be no. Science doesn't explain paranormal concepts, or concepts that humans can't understand. Many scientific explanations are incomplete, like our understanding of other galaxies. Science is not the final source of knowledge, and it can't be. Science is ever-changing because it is all about questioning what's around us. And by us, I mean humans, so that's a limitation right there. =]



On a personal note, I have trouble believing in Chemistry. Obviously it's been functioning for a while now, I get that. But the whole electrons "get excited" and move around because of it? I'm just skeptical. Also, the structure of molecules. Bullshit. Maybe it's just because I can't see most of Chemistry that I don't believe it. Which contradicts most of what I said above. Huh. I'm open- and close-minded at the same time! Woot!

Another personal note: I consider myself Agnostic instead of Atheist because of my lack of faith in science and belief in the paranormal. I don't know if nothing happens when you die, you could become a ghost, so I'm not an Atheist.