Losing the Dialectic

A friend reminded me recently that I've always resisted doing something simply because I was told or expected to do that thing. I think actions must be deliberate and require thought. There must be a reason to act, not simply a lack of a reason to not do it. With that thought, a life has purpose. Without that purpose, what is there to life but drifting?

That independence of thought causes more trouble than anything else. Because I have a reason to act, I am more invested in acting than those who act without thought or regard. Unfortunately, those that refuse to think initially often refuse to think when confronted with an opposing view. Challenging the way someone thinks, or acts in the case of stupid people, can be a vicious struggle.

That struggle, while it isn't always between idealism and pragmatism, does reflect different thoughts working towards resolution, either by compromise or by one side being defeated. Many people fail to understand that an argument can, and should, be devoid of personal attack. Instead, the goal is a battle of ideas to generate the best idea.

The process is lost upon people who tie their ego to their argument, refusing to give up when they are proven wrong. These people are difficult to work with and pervert the best of intentions because of narcissism.

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is admitting that I am wrong. It is difficult, but arguing in the face of being proven wrong or irrelevant is stupid and egotistical. However, I do think that I am better for it. Of course, I still argue stupid points, but I do so less frequently.

I find that most people haven't learned and do not care to learn this lesson. Being wrong isn't a sign of losing, it's a sign of progression and education. If you are wrong and learn you are wrong, you are better for it. You have learned something new and better. If you learn you are wrong and continue to argue in support of that wrong idea, you are promoting ignorance and preventing a better outcome.

This is a fairly academic distinction if you are working with a very small group of intelligent people with good communication skills. I'm discovering this optimum solution is rarely present. Instead, there are many larger groups, full of people with their own ideas, unwilling to realize that their idea may be wrong or that there may be a better idea that isn't theirs.

Consequently, I'm regularly demonized as the obstinate one. Yes, I will argue my point until we are forced to make a decision. Yes, I will not compromise my argument. Yet, I will change my argument or give it up completely if it can be proven wrong or inefficient.

In the end, I've realized it often isn't even about the argument. It's about people being petty. The argument and it's pursuit is the ideal. Dealing with the person is the pragmatic element, because people need to be placated and made to feel that they are necessary.

So what is the solution? Do we attempt to ignore the person for the argument? I think that isn't possible in most situations. Whatever action must be taken may be taken without compromise and efficiently in the instant case. But what about the next time you must interact with that person or those people?

Do we attempt to focus on the person instead of the argument? I think this is the flaw that many leaders make. In an attempt to placate the person, the argument for the action is lost. This simply dilutes the meaning of the action, leading to co-option, corruption, and perversion. It gives voice to an element that works against better solutions, legitimizing it for another day and another argument.

Growin' Up

I'm at the edge of one of the biggest decisions of my life. In a month or so, I will have the opportunity to move out of the city to work and finish up school in Washington, D.C. I would get to work on policy, which has always been something I've wanted to do. It is an amazing opportunity to learn and expand strong interests of mine.

However, I would have to pull up what meager roots I have in the city and move. This is probably not a big deal for some people, but I have a feeling that if I head out of this city, I might never make it back.

For all that I find frustrating about this city, I have friends here. I never thought that was something I would say, but it's true. There are people I could maintain contact with over the distance, but there are others whom I would miss seeing every week.

But, that is at stark contrast with the general apathy so many people here hold. There are many good people in the city that volunteer, but that is the extend of their efforts towards changing the world. They could do so much more, yet it doesn't even appear to be an option to do so for many.

Additionally, I've moved often, and I do feel the urge to move again. But, starting all over doesn't sound appealing to me now that I have a network of friends.

For the first time in a very long time, I'm really lost as to what to do. I've had to make thoughtful choices in the past and asked people for help, but I've never needed it. Now that I need their help, I don't know that anyone has given it to me. Instead, they simple reflect my own opinions. My friends are too polite - something I'll have to watch out for when introducing potentially-serious significant others to them.

I hate to complain about my personal decisions on this blog, but I do view it as attaching to the theme of it. Since I entered law school, I've struggled with reconciling my idealistic side and my pragmatic side. Moving to Washington, D.C. would be in favor of my idealistic side. I could engage the issues I am passionate about fully, addressing them directly in the most relevant forum.

The pragmatist within says not to go. Getting a job on the Hill after graduation will be tough, and I don't know if I could live in the environment of Washington, D.C. for a long time. Where I am right now holds job possibilities and avenues for really affecting change. Here, I could start a career and prepare myself for a later, larger struggle.

I might just fear what I don't know. Washington, D.C represents something new and untested - it's a new challenge for that stubborn, driven side to overcome.

Henry David Thoreau addressed this very issue in Walden; or, Life in the Woods, stating that "[t]he man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready."

Do I take advantage of my youth and push for something new, alone? Or, is it time to mature to the next stage socially and create a foothold, preparing to tackle future challenges with others that will be there to support me?

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Kill Us All

After reading an op-ed piece by Henry Giroux, I'm reminded that I live in a very segmented part of the U.S. While this can tout it's egalitarian and holier-than-thou lines, when it comes down to it, it's just as racist as the rest of America. A great example is the fear that pervades the minds of those that refuse to set foot in the poorest central part of the city, which has a vibrant minority community and some of the best ethnic food in the city. To a different degree, parts of the culturally Hispanic area are similar. It's easy to say that these parts of the city are avoided due to crime, but the crimes that take place are those against property, not random individuals.

In a larger application to all U.S. citizens, Giroux's calls for a stand against the growing separation. He goes back to his language about the invisible people who are disposable. They are exploited and trampled by larger social, political, or economic structures. As Americans search for an answer to the problems they see or are deceived into thinking exist, the framework for their answer results in the disposal of these people.

There are people mobilizing ignorant, and/or stupid, citizens into thinking their problems can be solved by a return to "American" values. It sounds patriotic until you realize American is built upon immigrants. It sounds independent and fiscally responsible until you realize that your tax cut comes at the cost of the suffering and death of the poor. It sounds secure until you realize that your neighbors are afraid to pray in public in a country that was founded upon religious freedom. These words are simply a vehicle for hatred fueled by hatred simple xenophobia. When the issues are analyzed discretely, that hatred is legitimized.

That's a good look at the problem, but what do we do about it? Do we sit contently, reading or writing about the subject in a closed forum, waiting for the problem to solve itself?

We have a responsibility to do something about the problems we see - locally, nationally, and internationally. Apathy is not acceptable.

Time Isn't On Our Side

It's been a long time since I posted something on here. I attribute this to discovering twitter, and posting quite frequently to my public and personal accounts. While the depth of material is in no way comparable, there is something to be said about actually having someone read what I post/write.

I really do miss the chance to write paragraphs, flushing out concepts and tossing links around like a literate lunatic. Today, the insanity returns.

In the last year, I've found myself arguing more and more for an adherence to idealism. Idealism to me isn't an end, but a means. It operates as the struggle that provides an intermediate solution that includes some idealism rather than excluding all of it. While most of my colleagues disagree with this view and espouse a purely economic or pragmatic solution, I think that problems should be addressed with at least a semblance of ethics and morals.

Because of this view, I've found myself with a smaller group of friends and a more defined view of the options that lay ahead of me professionally and socially. Here, we have a wonderful segue into relationships. You can't escape time.

The key question is whether a person should pursue idealism to the fullest of their abilities. This means placing the ideals that a person holds higher than anything. It's the force that drives so many young people in our society - that uncompromising nature that fails to yield to the advice of so-called experience that age brings.

However, as we get older, we change as individuals. No longer are we looking out for our own interests, but we start to incorporate the values of caring for others on a more personal level. I'm not talking about sending gifts to people on their birthday or making sure that the Christmas shopping is done on time. I'm talking about establishing common relationship roles, such as husband, father, or boyfriend. Since I'm male, I view it from a certain perspective, so using a gender neutral list would lend the interpretation of this writing a false property.

Relationships change our priorities - hopefully. The successful relationships I've seen have caused a shift from focus on the self to focus on the other person(s). Soon, the primary goal is no longer to solve literacy worldwide or to solve world hunger. Such goals become secondary.

When viewed from this perspective, age doesn't change our view of the world. Instead, we choose to change our perception as we build intimate relationships. Aging simply occurs simultaneously. This is a slow compromise of those ideals, because supporting those directly around you supplants the loft goals of single youth.

Following this logic, it simply means that as we learn more about life, the way we approach life changes. I don't think there is a judgment call on the shifting the priority of our individual goals. Yet, I do find that it highlights the dangers of an idealistic path.

The idealistic path can be a barren one, with joys few and far between. It's not for everyone, and some find parallel paths that contribute effectively rather than wholly. Garrison Keillor recently wrote an op-ed piece for the International Herald Tribune, addressing this very issue. When it comes down to it, many people take the path of "cheese" because idealism can be quickly forced out when competing with family and comfort.

To end this ill-timed post, I'll say that I find more people these days looking to not take a serious approach to life. I'm not sure if this means that my generation desires to skip the idealism of youth or if it is simply abandoning reality completely. Time will reveal the follies of our choices.