Friday, March 27, 2009

Questions about Economics and Politics

So recently I've found myself more and more interested in Politics and Economics. Alas I'm horribly hindered in my speculations by a tiny problem: I don't know shit about either. I mean I took Government and Economics back in high school, but come on. It was my senior year, both my teachers really didn't care, and quite frankly at that point neither did I. But now as my reading has increased, I've realized that many of my favorite books, such as Dune and others have major political and economic themes. This is quite distressing because, although I have pretty good reading comprehension, I know for a fact that I'm missing a lot. Very, very, distressing.

The other thing is the simple fact that I'm twenty years old, and to be perfectly honest I don't really fully understand the US, or other countries for that matter, government system. Sure I have my beliefs on major issues like Capital Punishment, and the other biggies, but what do those beliefs make me? Liberal? Conservative? Republican? Democrat? Green? Red? Blue? Yellow? I kind of understand the differences between them all, but not in a very substantial way. I also don't have strong idea on how the Congress works, nor the Senate. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Fascism; all terms I'm familiar with, but if you asked me to tell you the difference between Socialism and Communism, I wouldn't be able to. And now it's all come to a head! I'm currently reading The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers, and it has a lot of talk about Communism, well maybe Marxism? Or is it Socialism? I'm not sure. In any case, what I'm reading sort of fits with some of my personal ideas on government and economics, as juvenile as they may be so does that mean I'm a commie bastard? Or socialist? I don't know. All I know is that this sounds right to me:

"And look what has happened to our freedom. The men who fought the American Revolution were no more like these D.A.R. dames than I'm a pot bellied, perfumed Pekingese dog. They meant what they said about freedom. They fought a real revolution. They fought so that this could be a country where every man would be free and equal. Huh! And that meant every man was equal in the sight of Nature--with an equal chance. This didn't mean that twenty per cent of the people were free to rob the other eighty per cent of the means to live. This didn't mean for one rich man to sweat the piss out of ten thousand poor men so that he can get richer. This didn't mean the tyrants were free to get this country in such a fix that millions of people are ready to do anything00cheat, lie, or whack off their right arm--just to work for three squares and a flop. They have made the word freedom a blasphemy. You hear me? They have made the word freedom stink like a skunk to all who know."
~Jake Blount page 158

And:

"Karl Marx was a wise man. He studied and worked and understood the world around him. He said that the world was divided into two classes, the poor and the rich. For every rich man there were a thousand poor people who worked for this rich man to make him richer. He did not divide the world into Negroes or white people or Chinese--to Karl Marx it seemed that being one of the millions of poor people or one of the few rich was more important to a man than the color of his skin. The life mission of Karl Marx was to make all human beings equal and to divide the great wealth of the world so that there would be no poor or rich and each person would have his share. This is one of the commandments Karl Marx left us: 'For each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'"
~Dr. Benedict Copeland page 188

Excuse the not so PC language in that last one, the setting the 1930s in the South.

Fiction is a hard way to judge non-fiction ideas, so I'm not so sure how accurate the latter is to what Marx actually thought. I also know that in theory Communism works, but, as we've seen several times in history, it tends to fail in practice. I'm not sure why that is, perhaps the way the Soviets executed it wasn't actually how Marx intended it. In any case, I feel like I have a fairly complete view on what I think politics and economics should be, but because I don't know much about any of the different theories, I don't know where I stand. I would put what I think her, but I'm not nearly eloquent enough to put what I think into words without sounding convoluted and idiotic. I've discussed it with Kimberley a couple times, so I'm getting better at saying what I think, but I'm still not comfortable with my ideas.

I also don't want to be labeled, ha like it already hasn't happened, until I understand what the label is. The other problem I'm having is this: if I do feel more compatible with something such as Socialism, Communism, or kangorooism for that matter, I know how stupid we Americans are. Especially since my ideas are more theoretical than practical. I, like most Americans, have a very negative view on commies and socialist bastards and every other not capitalistic democratic system. We all do. But I want people to discriminate me for things I actually understand, like race or religion or people who think reading is dumb, not on failed political ideals. More than likely I'm not going to agree with what the political ideas have said in the past, I might want something new? But with old ideas from various political systems. Until I actually have a grasp on it I'm not willing to say I'm anything. For now, let's say I'm a Ryanist.

So in order to become "educated", if it's possible on such huge topics as politics and economics, I've decided to read some of the various books on them. Maybe take a class on econ and politics. Though I have a feeling that even though I'm excited now, I'm not going to follow through very well with this, because, shit both subjects are TERRIBLY boring. So we'll see. Maybe I'll read a bit of the Communist Manifesto and various others. For now though I'm gonna put some definitions in here:

Communism n. a political theory advocating a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and abilities.

Marxism n. the political and economic theories of Karl Marx predicting the over throw of capitalism and the eventual attainment of a classless society with the state controlling the means of production.

Socialism n. a political and economic theory which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Hmm well its obvious Marx was wrong when he thought capitalism would be overthrown. I think this has to do with the fact that he said there were only two classes; it doesn't seem like the middle class played a role in his theory. But I'm not sure yet. As for communism, well, it seems easy to misconstrue what "publicly owned" means, cause didn't Russia make it so the State controlled those things? I do agree somewhat with the needs and abilities idea, I think. Of course all these definitions are way vague and simplified, but those are some of my thoughts on just those.

Feel free to comment with your ideas, thoughts, criticisms and such. I'm always interested in people's opinions. Also I think everyone should pick up a copy of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers, its damn good!

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Pascal’s Wager

There is no God— at least not in the way Blaise Pascal believes. Pascal was a French philosopher who, if nothing else, had some very interesting ideas on God and why you should believe in his God. I'm sure during the time he was alive his arguments were as solid as a castle's defense, but if we merely look at his theory from another angel we'd find it is nothing more than a house of cards. Pascal believes that though God is incomprehensible it is still in our best interest to believe in him. I'm going to show how his argument is mortally flawed for several reasons.

Pascal gets right to the point by first telling us that "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible…We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is" (93). I agree, if indeed there is a divine, almighty, super being out there, it doesn't give humans a second glance. Next Pascal goes on to simplify the notion of God into two categories: He exists or He doesn't. As human beings we have a choice, a wager, when it comes to our immortal existence, if indeed there is such a thing. According to him these are the only choices we have and we must put all our chips on the table when it comes to making this wager. As to what's on the line, Pascal explains "You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things at stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery" (94). To add to this already iffy claim Pascal leaves no third option, that being not to wager at all. His reasoning here is that if you choose not to live a life not choosing your actions will, as a default, lean toward the side of not believing.

There are four outcomes to this two choice wager; if you believe in God and he turns out to exist you'll live in eternal happiness, ie heaven, if you believe in God and he doesn't exist you don't lose anything and actually, according to Pascal, you'll be a better person because of it; on the other side if you don't believe in God and he turns out to exist you'll be in eternal misery, ie hell, or if he doesn't exist you don't gain anything anyway. Pascal then goes on to say that of the two options a reasonable man will choose to believe in this God because, in the long run, you have less to lose. His argument, "Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side [believing in God]? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, [and] truthful" (Pascal 95). At first glance all these arguments seem solid and reasonable, but let's take a closer look at some of his assumptions.

First, though his logic is sound, something just doesn't feel right about his two options. You believe or you do not believe, but already I'm not even included in these categories because I choose not to choose. Before I elaborate, though, I want to address his major flaw, that being his assumption of a Christian God. Although he tries to take an unbiased outlook on his work as a whole, his basic argument rests on Christian doctrine. First he says that to take a third view your life will unwittingly follow a path of sin, and that by believing in God you'll live a life without sin. As everyone knows that is not the case. There are people out there that do wretched, horrible, despicable things and yet still follow the word of God. They go to Church every Sunday, they don't say the Lords name in vein, but yet do horrible, horrible things. As such, there are people out there that don't necessarily believe in God, but are moral, they live without sin, they're loyal friends, humble, honest, and all of the other qualities Pascal set to only those who believe. To spur his Christian point on, he brings up heaven and hell, the notion, of course, is familiar to all of us but it should not be clouding the mind of someone trying to find Truth. The other downfall of this assumption is we don't actually know which God is the God. Let's say we live out life to the t as a Christian, die, and find out that it was really the Hindu God that was the real God. Would that God not be unhappy with us? Would that God not punish us for not only not believe in him, but for living out life by the standards of a God that doesn't even exist? This assumption of a Christian God is Pascal's biggest flaw, one that damages his argument beyond repair.

Even if we're generous with Pascal and let the Christian God assumption slip by he still has some major flaws. Going back to the outcomes; do we really know what happens when we die? Pascal says that if one were to not believe in God and be right they would gain nothing. What if when we die we are still self-aware in some way, would we not be somewhat gratified to know that we lived out life how we wanted to live it? Though, this is a bit of a stretch, I believe it is still valid. Pascal also mentions practically tricking yourself into believing in God "Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness" (Pascal 94). Essentially brainwash yourself into believing in God, but wouldn't that doubt still nag the back of your mind? I believe it would and as such, though we don't know the nature of God, I surely doubt He would want us to fake believing in him. The outcomes themselves are a little too forced, seeing as we do not know what happens when we neither die, nor do we know the nature of God or if Heaven and Hell exist there's no way we could conclude as Pascal did that there are only four outcomes. If for instance there is a God, but he is wholly apathetic to us and decides that there is nothing after death, neither punishment nor happiness, Pascal's theory crumbles. Indeed, the choices and the outcomes don't quite match up either, seeing as the Christian God gave us free will, I then could choose not to choose but still live an absolutely moral and "good" life there is no way He could punish me for it. This is yet another crack in Pascal's theory.

In conclusion, though Blaise Pascal's theory has some, almost logical, basis looking a bit deeper reveals some major flaws. By assuming that God is the Christian God, Pascal alienates many other religious groups with just as much evidence for their God(s) as Christianity. Instead of trying to prove the existence of an organized religions', we as philosophers, indeed we seekers of Truth should try and find the nature of whatever god may be out there, if there is a God. We should also not limit ourselves to possible outcomes, especially in matters of death. No one will ever know what happens when we die, perhaps nothing, perhaps something, but there are limitless possibilities. We should also not assume that can even touch on Gods nature, as such we should not let things we want cloud our judgments and make us blind to negative aspects of Gods nature. Perhaps God is something that should not even be sought; after all we have many, many equally tough questions to ask

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Talking About Books

I find it increasingly difficult to actually compare books, or even just decide what my favorite is. In the long run this isn't a big deal, but seeing as I work at a bookstore and need to be able to make myself clear, it's a bit of an issue. I'm not sure why I'm having such trouble now, before it didn't take much thought at all, but now it’s actually hard! Partially, I think, it's because I've read so many more books recently than I have before. Indeed, it’s rather sad, but I tallied up the total number of books I've ever read, at least the ones I can remember, and I excluded almost all kids’ books, and it only came up to 211. This is way stupid, but I really thought I read more. Okay fine I'm only 20 years old so I guess that's a pretty good number, but considering I read a fourth of those this past year, it's really distressing to me. Maybe I'm having a more difficult time because in the past couple years I've read so many great books that it's now impossible for me to say. Or more likely I'm just thinking about things way too much.

I don't know why I do it, but I do. There are so many variables to consider, so many differences, such complexity, that I just find it almost stupid to even try. But what exactly am I suppose to do? A customer asks "What's your favorite book?" I can't start asking them about genres, moods, length, and complexity. I'm the one who’s supposed to be making their choice easier. How though? How on earth can anyone, no matter who they are or what they do, compare, in any legitimate way, science fiction and, say, mystery? Or even worse, sci-fi/fantasy to fiction? You can't, you really just cannot do it! Hell it's hard enough to compare books in the same genre! I mean I love Tolkien, but I also love Feist. The two are completely different in the themes and styles--okay so most fantasy authors take a little dip into the Tolkien style, but that's irrelevant here--and yet they are two of my favorite fantasy authors ever. Why? I love them both for different reasons, I can't say I like one more than the other because they're too different! And yet they're in the same genre! I want to make a list of my top ten favorite books, but I just can't! I suppose I could just write up a list of my top ten in each genre, but like I said earlier, picking one over the other is just.. wrong!

Don't get me wrong, I have very obvious favorites when it comes right down to it. For example, Dune is so much better than most sci-fi out there, but can I say it's my favorite sci-fi novel/series? No, I really can't. This is because the very nature of sci-fi, and arguably any genre, is the amount of creativity within the genre. Dune is great for so many reasons, but it's not great for the same reasons as Snow Crash. Indeed, what make them so amazing are those very differences, their originality, and their uniqueness. Another huge factor involved in how I rate books is the feelings I have about them. Now this is completely and utterly subjective, but it still makes a huge difference. I'm not very eloquent, so this is probably going to sound really confusing, but whatever. The mood I'm is what plays a role here. It’s hard to explain, but I can only read certain genres or even certain books at certain times. Tolkien for example, I love The Lord of the Rings, but it's one of those trilogies that I have to be in the "mood" for, ya know? I've heard this at my work before, "I just need a nice easy read" or "I feel like a good trashy romance right now". So maybe I'm not as dumb as I thought.

I find this plays a huge role in when I read what, especially when it comes to non-fiction and literature. Probably 85% of the time I want to read something entertaining or fun, in my case that's science fiction or fantasy. Not that I don't enjoy non-fiction or literature, but it's just not, fun. More and more I'm forcing myself to read literature even when I'm not in the mood for it. This tactic seems to work well because I do genuinely like literature, I just have to get started first. This isn't the case for non-fiction, for that I really have to be in the mood for it, or had to fiction myself out. Though I haven't really tried to force myself to read it, I'm sure if I did it would work somewhat, but I just have a bad attitude I think. I feel that if I don't "want" to read it I shouldn't waste my precious little time reading it, even if it's good or factual or whatever. I have the same problem when it comes to studying; I'm only living for a set number of years, why should I spend 8 hours studying for a test that doesn't matter? It's a bit of a problem, I know. Slowly but surely I think I'm making progress, most of it can be attributed to Kimberley. I find that I'm studying more now--on my own even--and I'm also trying really hard to read more literature stuff, even though most of the time it's rather dry. Although, I have no doubt that no matter my age or maturity level, I'm always going to prefer sci-fi/fantasy to any other genres.

Writing this out seems to have helped clear up my thinking. It really is amazing what the simple act of writing your thoughts down will do to put things in perspective. The brain is certainly a funny thing. I realize now that even if I can't arrange them in a numerical order, the fact I am so "in love" with certain books or series gives me a perfect place to start from. I have these favorites in pretty much every genre aside from non-fiction, which I haven't really read enough of to make them clear. Not only that, but I'm seriously passionate about some of these titles, enough so that with a little background on a customer, I can probably find something that they will like. In the meantime, it might be kinda fun to try and list some of my favorites, and group them by genre if only so I have a reasonable idea of how to answer "what's your favorite book?". Maybe I'll even try and work out some sort of numerical list, or if not a rating system. I've tried the rating stuff before; actually I have a word doc that is a replica of my Year of Reading that has ratings of all the books. It's a simple ten point system, but I find that after each book I read I end up altering many of the scores of the others. This seems to be a bit of a problem, so maybe I'll spend some time this summer and see if I can come up with a more accurate system. Oh and what I'll do is post up various ideas or thoughts on it to try and fine tune it with a little feedback, not that anyone really ever comments :(. I will be sure to start working on that list here shortly, it totally sounds like an interesting and fairly difficult project to wrap my head around, way better than school that's for sure!

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Overcome


I wander through the fiction section straightening books as I go. Face one out here; slide two over there, all the while my eyes glide over various titles and authors. I feel it coming, I always feel it coming, yet I feebly try to stop it. And then it's there, crushing me, suffocating me. I feel my heart thud in my chest, blood rush to my face, these names, these titles, I am nothing compared to them. The great names loom over me: Austin, Capote, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, Huxley, Orwell, Steinbeck, Tolstoy.. on and on until my vision fogs over and my head screams "You are nothing! What are you ever going to accomplish? You can't compare. Nothing you do will ever be worth even one of these books" I mange to shake it off, if only slightly, but the books still surround me. There are so many! So many stories. So many characters. So many voices calling out to me. It's too much! It's all too much, I want to throw down my badge and just read, read, read, read! But my vision expands and I see not only literature, but mystery, sci-fi, fantasy, history, politics! The subjects go on and on! Rows upon rows of books, wall to wall, floor to ceiling. My breath catches in my throat and my mind goes on, "Ha! Even if you spent every minute of every day for the rest of your life reading never will you get remotely close to reading what's out there." Then my paranoid side comes out, what if I choose wrong? What if it's bad? What if that time is gone forever? And my mind reels at the fact it's all passing by. What am I doing with my life? Why? How? I'm never going to have this minute again. NEVER. It's gone. Again and again, I'm losing time, I'm slowly dying, but what am I doing? Nothing. Life is slowly getting away from me, I've been here twenty years now and what do I have to show for it? I'm fat, I'm not educated at all when it comes right down to it, and it all just overcomes me. My eyes begin to water, but then, hope. My heart slows, my breath comes easy, and I look around. I anxiety subsides and I realize how I relish being in the presences of these great ones. 

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Thoughts From a Bookstore Part 2: The Dumb and the Awkward

So, I know I said I was going to do my next one of these on the religious people, but after a good 20 minute rant to my girlfriend I figured I had enough content for another topic. Everyone complains how the rest of the world thinks Americans are idiots; perhaps this section will shed some light as to why that is.

The Dumb

There are several assumptions one can make about people that shop at a bookstore. First and foremost is that they can read. Well I have discovered that is not always the case, in fact, I think it's safe to say many are flat out blind. For example, the question we get asked most doesn't have anything to do with books, nor music, nor movies, but where the bathroom is. Now this is a logical question seeing as we're a public facility and all, and hell even in some parts of the store, but most seem to enjoy standing right under the freaking sign, or even in a direct line of sight to it. Along the same line we get people who come up to the desk and ask for CDs or DVDs, which are conveniently pointed out by 5 foot black and white contrasting signs hanging from the God damn ceiling. To add insult to injury when I point the sign out, they still don't see it. Come on people. Big black and white sign. Not hard to miss. I'll give some people credit, though, older folks do have fairly bad sight, but anyone under 50 has no excuse. Next up we have the people who refuse to take "we don't have it" for an answer. These people come in all self righteous, refuse help saying they can look it up on their own. Which they can, it is a pretty easy program to use, and all the buttons are clearly labeled as are the results. The screen even says either "Likely in store" with the location of the item listed or in bold red font "ORDER" if we don't currently have it in. Seems pretty easy doesn't it? Even still these people will then yell at us and ask "Where is this, it doesn't say" of course the item they're looking for isn't there. I tell them such and they proceed to practically scream saying such and such is a "classic" why don't you have it blah blah blah this is outrageous. Then as if any of us care, they say "well *lifts nose up* Barnes and Nobel will has it". Uh, okay, cool, is that suppose to be an insult? Pretty sure we each carry different shit, big deal. And more than likely they don't have it seeing as Hastings, Borders, and B&N all get books from the same distributors. This next incident I couldn't make up if I wanted too: On multiple occasions we've had people all and ask "hi, Do you have books?" Whoa.. what? Okay sure calling a place like Hastings you could ask that, seeing as they mainly carry multimedia, but this is Borders BOOKSTORE. Come on. Though, sadly, we've had someone come in, walk through the front of the store--which I might add is full of all sorts of books--and ask if we carried paperbacks. Sigh shoot me seriously. The last example I have by far takes the cake on American stupidity. I was fixing the audiobooks and this couple next to me was looking at Homers The Odyssey. The man was scrutinizing it pretty intently; I thought maybe he was just hard of seeing, but nooo he comments to his wife: "So do you think this is read by the original author? This, uh, Homer guy? I think it might be." I stopped what I was doing and was just hoping and praying he was joking, but I looked over and they both looked puzzled. And the final blow came from the wife, "I hope so, I heard he has a wonderful voice!" Oh lord.. Just.. yeah... And we wonder why everyone thinks we're fucking idiots.

The Awkward

This section is somewhat worse than the one above, but for different reasons. As most of you should know, bookstores have an adult erotica section. As such we get all sorts of weirdos because of it, not to mention the 14 year old horny middle school students. First I should probably mention that we have some pretty fucked up books back there too--har har "fucked up"--such as The Fetish Book, which is conveniently made of rubber for even the most wacky sex. I should also mention that I'm pretty open when it comes what people do behind closed doors, but it's still.. awkward when people are super open about it. For example way too many times have I had an older couple, maybe in their 50s or 60s, come up and ask where the sex section was. That's cool, I mean, heck its natural, but these people are like teenagers! Again, that's cool, but I don't think I'll ever get used to the sight of an old man grabbing his old wife's bum and sucking on her saggy neck.

The other common awkward experience is those that deal with recovery. As many of you know, or should know anyway, people have problems, lots and lots of problems. It also goes without question there are plenty of people out there that are willing to help, or at least make money pretending to help. Many times I'll have guests come in, sadly a lot of parents and grandparents that are looking for ways to get their kids/grandkids off drugs, or through other addictions. It's so hard to know what to say when they ask for something like that, I mean usually I like to try and make conversation with my customers, but with something like abuse, or drugs, or many other topics in that area, it’s hard to know where the line is. There are people that are willing to share their entire life story with you and others that don't want you to talk at all. The ones I find especially difficult are those that deal with abuse. We have a whole section on it, and there are some really helpful books out there, but when it comes to talking about it, or helping someone it’s just so.. I don't know difficult. Cause I feel bad, but at the same time I'm supposed to be impartial and keep my nose out of things. Or before we used to order specific books for people and when they got in we'd give them a call telling them their book has arrived. A lot of the time people won't answer, for good reason too I mean it is a random number, but what am I suppose to say when the title is something like When Daddy Hurts Mommy or Love Shouldn't Hurt, or Get Out Now!, what if it’s a general mailbox and the child hears? Or the abuser listens? I don't know, this probably isn't the tone you were expecting after the first examples, but it's something worth noting I guess.

So I was planning on doing one other section, but I'm just going to cut it cause its kinda stupid anyway. Essentially it was just how half the people out there think they know how to run the store better than we do. Meh, people are freaking stupid anyway. I hope this little adventure gave you some laughs and maybe even got you thinking.