eagerforeternalrest-blog

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Alfons Heck; Heil Hitler!:Confessions of a Hitler Youth

While undergoing research on my latest paper, i read many articles, journals, books, and saw a couple of documentaries. The one that struck me the most was the documentary based on Alfons Heck’s book published in 1985, A Child of Hitler: Germany in the Days When God Wore a Swastika. The documentary was titled Heil Hitler!: Confessions of a Hitler Youth and was produced by HBO.

This documentary was about his own experience as a youth growing up in Nazi Germany. He described how his entire world changed the day that Germany annexed Austria (where he was living at the age of six). Everyone was gathering in the streets to welcome the Germans. He had no idea who the Nazis were or what they were doing in Austria, he only knew that people loved Hitler and couldn't wait for him to come. He joined in chants and pretty soon adored Hitler as well. 

Next he described how his school and education changed. A portrait of Hitler entered every classroom. Racial science was introduced, and teachers talked about “the Jewish problem” openly and pragmatically. He was still in grade school! On his 10th birthday he joined the Hitler Youth, he was already in love with the Nazi party. He thinks back on his attitude, and realizes he would've done anything for Hitler, even die. 

He and his Hitler Youth members would play war games and fight with each other for fun. They went to go see propaganda films in the cinemas and then went to youth meetings where the same propaganda would be taught. There were even rallies where many Youth Regiments would gather and march for the Fuhrer. He described how these made him feel, completely intoxicated by the group mentality. He also talked about the power structure of the Hitler Youth and how young boys could be put in charge of other young boys if they showed initiative. This power was seductive he said, he and other leaders could tell their peers to do anything they wanted.

I found this documentary extremely important because as a psychology major i am very interested in the idea of human beings being blank slates, being able to shape or forge them into anything you desire can be incredibly terrifying. By looking at the different ways the Nazis indoctrinated their youth, i constructed my research paper. Mankind has known the importance of teaching youth when they are young, this can be seen even in ancient civilizations. When we are born into this world, we are malleable to a certain degree, we are all products of our environment. Philosophically speaking, this opens a can of worms when we consider what SHOULD be taught to our children. This is something we should all consider when we have children of our own, or when questions are raised about public education, we should remember the impact it may have on all youth.

Overall, this documentary broadened my intellectual horizons greatly. It showed a perfect example of how education and children’s malleability can be used for terrible things. It also sparked my interest in the topic of morality, and i will continue to research the field while intertwining it with psychology.

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Why We LOVE Zombies.

It seems to me that Zombies have permeated our recent television shows, movies, and overall entertainment. I believe this is because of the following three human psychological fears.

1. We are afraid of being weak, and this setting makes or brakes people. When people are faced with massive emotional and physical challenges, many of us will break down or even lose the will to go on. I feel that most of us imagine ourselves as the ones who would not break down, as survivors. In reality, we don’t know what we would be like until it happens. An ultimate test of apocalyptic, cataclysmic, destruction is the only way ones true character will surface. Are we weak or are we strong? Its almost as if there’s nothing we could have done to prepare for this. We are either one or the other, and we will find out when the s#@t hits the fan.

2. We love our kin, and everyone we have ever known is probably dead AND trying to kill us. When a Zombie apocalypse occurs, we must face the fact that many many people we previously knew or loved are now dead. Not only must we face the fact that most people are dead, but that they most likely died gruesomely. Some starved, some were eaten alive, some killed themselves, some were killed by others trying to survive. On top of that, we simultaneously come to terms with with the fact that they have all been reanimated and are trying to kill us. We cannot help them, we cannot save them, they have been killed and are now killers. Now we must kill them again. 

3. We made it to civilization, but now we are placed in a world like that of early  homo sapiens. A place where your group is forced to be on the move and constantly trying to survive. If you are lucky enough to belong to a group in this new world, you are constantly in danger. On one front, the new zombies represent the nature that was trying to kill our ancestors at every turn. We stayed close, built fires, and protected each other, but many still died. On another front, we must now navigate this world while trying to avoid other groups of people. In this new world, people are struggling to get by and many are willing to kill you for some extra supplies. Rules of civilization have broken down and everyone is out for their own.

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Hitler Youth

For my spring quarter research paper, I am choosing to analyze three documentary films that discuss the Hitler Youth movement and its captivating effect on children during the 1930′s and 1940′s. The three films are titled “Heil Hitler! Confessions of a Hitler Youth” (1991), “Hitlers Kinder” (2000), and “Hitler’s Children” (2011). 

I have chosen these three films because i am fascinated by the effect the Hitler Youth had on children at the time. These children were indoctrinated at a very young age into the ideology of Nazism. They were taught “racial science” in their schools, and they were told that serving the Fuhrer was the greatest honor. 

In my paper i will focus on the cultural importance of the Hitler Youth Movement on German children and the effect of indoctrinating children at such a young age. I will argue that the point of the movement was to fuel the coming war that Hitler embarked upon. I will also argue that the Hitler Youth Movement became so large and powerful because the economic and societal shape of Germany at the time was in shambles.

I find it incredibly impressive that Hitler was able to captivate an army of children and fill their heads with extremely dangerous ideas. He found a way to raise an army of unquestioning soldiers who would do anything at his beck and call. He took what some cult leaders do with 10 or 20 followers to the scale of an entire nation. Children and their parents were eager to join the cause.

I plan on heavily researching the Hitler Youth and pointing out the malicious form of child abuse that it was. These children had no choice, they were forced to support their country and fight in the world war, they were being groomed by the Nazi party to follow orders and never question the Fuhrer. It is astonishing that this brainwashing of nearly 8 million German children is rarely mentioned.

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Wish Fulfillment

lets take a look at J.M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians and try to interpret it as a dream in Freud’s dynamic theory of dream interpretation. We can easily see how it could represent a sort of wish fulfillment. In the novel, there are many many fears or anxieties present. The Magistrate is an old man, trying to resist the call of death as his bones become brittle and his knees shake. He is ever so lonesome, constantly visiting the local brothel, wishing for a real connection. He has some authority, yet he must yield to the authority of the empire that he works for, always under their thumb. He is surrounded by people who seem to lack morality, a sense of right and wrong, he wants justice. 

Every one of these worries that the magistrate faces are somewhat overcome, or dealt with, in one way or another. The first, old age, is dealt with when The Magistrate challenges the young men of the Third Bureau, he shows them that age does not make him weak, instead it makes him wise. He realizes how naive and blind they are to what is going on around them. Their arrogance is clearly seen as their weakness, giving the magistrate an upper hand and confidence that he does not wish to be them.

The second, loneliness, is overcome when he finds a beautiful young barbarian girl that lives in his quarters and he gets to rub her down every night. He falls asleep next to her and she does not mind his fetishes, he feels a strange connection with this girl that isn’t necessarily sexual.

The third, lack of power or being controlled, and the fourth, lack of justice, are overcome when the magistrate rebels from the empire. He takes the barbarian girl back to her family and is captured on his return. When more prisoners are brought in, he stands up for them and yells at his torturers, pleading for them to stop. This act of defiance is accomplishing a moral goodness for himself and at the same time showing that he does not care what the empire thinks of him any longer.

Overall, it seems as though most texts, films, and television shows can be interpreted in a way that represents a form of battle. Overcoming anxieties or fears that most of us face can be greatly entertaining, perhaps even inspiring.

#humcore

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Looking Through The Lens

Everything we read, everything we hear, everything we see is mediated. When you are browsing the internet, looking for things transpiring in the world, often times you stumble upon an article or a video depicting events that took place, so called ‘news’. This, you think, is NEWS, I can absolutely trust this information. I found it on the INTERNET, or on TELEVISION, heck! perhaps even in a BOOK! I am very sorry to hit you over the head with a little bit of truth... this news you are reading may not be exactly how it happened.

Whichever medium you happen to be looking at usually has an author, or at the very least a publisher. This publisher or author has a say in what is being released. We must realize and accept that when we see or read something it is through a lens. A lens that changes the image, this lens is called perspective, and everyone has one. You, me, your teacher, your parents, every single person on this earth has a unique lens, a unique perspective. This might in fact change how certain events are captured, how they are described. I would also like to bring to your attention that this layer of mediation (looking through a lens, AKA perspective) can sometimes be multiplied, just like a game of telephone. You (1) watch the news reporter (2) who hears what happened from a witness (3) who heard what happened from her husband (4) who actually saw the event.

Often times this type of mediation is passive and we do not even realize it is happening. Many of us are very honest in trying to convey the absolute truth when describing things, we don’t want to be liars. Unfortunately, this type of mediation is done without intention. When sensory information comes into our brains, we automatically interpret, we automatically make judgments, we automatically pay attention to different aspects, its our very nature. Usually its not anyone’s fault when information differs from the res gestae or events that took place. But if we take our analogy back to the game of telephone, we can all easily remember that one person who alters the information with a specific goal in mind, intentional mediation.

We again have to keep in mind that not everyone is so honest and not everyone has intentions of telling the entire truth. When information has to go through a publisher or media outlet, often times information is changed to fit certain agendas. Whatever this goal is (political, economical, etc.) plays a big role in how the information is altered. An intentional lens may be added to the already passive lens of perspective. 

All of the forms of mediation stated prior are reasons for why you and I should both look with a skeptic eye at what we see. Not even we have a perfect view of the events, always remember our very own lens is active. 

#humcore

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Entertaining Torture

In the years since the attacks on Sep. 11, 2001, many film, television, and video game producers have integrated some sort of torture into their work. When entertainment depicts torture, it skews the reality of torture in many ways, reduces the empathy of those who watch it, and cashes in on the human psychological attraction to violence.

Google’s definition of torture is: “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.” From this point on, I will be addressing this definition when I use the word torture.

After 9/11, this nation was emotionally bleeding and in need of a sort of response to the horrendous attacks committed. Politics and government did as they did, yet not many people realized the entertainment industry evolving to meet the american crisis as well. With movies such as Zero Dark Thirty and television shows such as 24, The Blacklist, and Homeland, torture is depicted in such a way where the interrogator is the hero. Often times, the “extreme interrogation” results in the saving of hundreds or thousands of lives. “Go Torture!” This is very misleading and leads one to believe that everyone who tortures does so on ethical grounds and that it always results in saving some lives. In reality, many innocent people are tortured and no useful information is extracted. In the majority of these shows, those who get tortured usually survive with no serious injuries and go to prison. This, again, is far fetched and far from reality. In many cases torture results in death or immense physical and or emotional pain that lasts for a lifetime. Entertainment has done a good job of skewing the reality of torture, lets talk about how this diminishes empathy in their audience.

When torture is shown repeatedly and with no strong emotional revulsion attached to it, viewers tend to sum it up as just another fact of life, nothing to worry about. Saw, Hostel, Final Destination, all of these film series show gore and painful torture regularly and pass from scene to scene nonchalantly as terrible acts are committed. What this does to most viewers is that it desensitizes their emotional reflex to anything containing gore or torture. Over a period of time, with repeat exposure to these types of films and entertainment, empathy is weakened and the viewer is accustomed to blood, guts, and pain. These shows make people less likely to care or respond if they see or hear of someone else’s pain in the real world.

Lastly, entertainment is an industry, a multi-million dollar industry. While simultaneously tapping into the American need of retribution ($), they also tapped into the human attraction to violence ($). Especially in the safe and comfortable lives we live here in the states, portrayal of violent suspense films arouses in us a profound way. In every day life, we do not experience life threatening situations or extreme violence, these films can give some of us a sort of potency or significance of life we find missing. Furthermore, when two people are in a life threatening situation, the Good vs. Evil theme can enter the scene very quickly, yet again cashing in on a psychological fascination of ours. Taking advantage of a natural attraction to violence can lead so some unexpected societal changes if all the industry is thinking about is money.

Overall, depicting torture as entertainment has some pretty serious consequences seen in our society. Doing so skews the reality of torture going on in the world today, reduces empathy in the audience that views it, and takes advantage of a psychological attraction to violence to line the pockets of the entertainment industry. 

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

The Reality of War

Lets us start this post with a question in the school of philosophy. 

What is Real?

It seems to me, reality is what we experience. Within our skulls, billions of neurons are firing at an incredible rate, this firing of neurons in a particular pattern gives us what we call reality. I bring this point to light not to downplay reality, but to emphasize it’s difficulty in recreating the exact feeling one gets from first-hand experience.

Walt Whitman, perhaps the greatest poet in american history, is quoted saying “The real war will never get in the books.” He is not wrong. It is simply impossible to put every single cognitive thought, bodily sensation, and sight into words. Recreating the reality of the Civil War is a feat that he attempted along with other writers and artists of the time. Unfortunately, there is no way to neatly wrap every aspect of experience and share it with someone else. The reality of war will, simply, never make it in the books.

This says something about the attempts to do exactly that. Taking it upon oneself to relay the experience of war to those who are not there to experience it is quite the feat. Although perspective and mediation will always play a role in depiction, artists and writers do their absolute best to share their experience, and merely getting a glimpse of the reality of war is terrifying. 

In my opinion, war is the manifestation of those qualities which are most atrocious in humans. Quite frankly, I am thrilled that the reality of war will NEVER make it in the books. The horrible and ugly truth of war is something that I never wish to experience fully. I respect those who live with their experience of war, and admire those who go the extra mile of trying to share that experience only to stress its violent and unforgiving nature.

#Humcore

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

7:00 PM Friday, January 8, 2016

The Emancipation Of The Negroes - The Past and The Future - January, 1863

In the image above, we see a depiction of fate of the African American race. From my analysis of this picture, it appears that Thomas Nast had a very optimistic view of the future of African Americans in January of 1863, I argue that his portrayal of their past is very close to reality but his depiction of their future is far from it.

If we look at the various parts of the image, we can see there is a circular timeline starting from the top left corner, moving counter-clockwise to the top right corner with Nast’s current point in time being the small circle towards the bottom of the image and his optimal future the large circle in the center. It begins with a depiction of white men with weapons descending upon Africa from their ships, with lightning, dark clouds, and a three headed dog behind them. Next, we see more African Americans awaiting to be auctioned off in America. Below this, a black woman and a black man are being whipped and cut by white men as their fellow slaves watch. Lastly, on the image just to the left of the imagined present, we see a white man on a horse whipping a black man standing on the ground. Thomas hit this dead on, this is a great depiction of the very gruesome truth that was slavery before and during the civil war.

Now we have reached Thomas Nast’s present day, within this circle at the bottom of the image, we see two heavenly figures with wings on their backs removing the shackles off of a black man. One of the figures appears to be an old man, while the other seems to be an infant, above the infant’s head is the year printed, 1863. If we continue clockwise, we see the scales of justice and we also see a picture of a white man on a horse acknowledging two black men and he appears to be saluting them on their work. Following the circle, one can see a line of black workers being paid by a white cashier. Above this, more black families sending their kids off to public school. Finally, we see white and black men winning the war on the Union side and a woman holding the scales of justice. In the center of this large image, we see what appears to be a black family of eight that is well dressed, about to eat dinner in a nice home, happily living their lives. It is also important to note the picture of Abraham Lincoln hanging from their wall. This, as we know, is far from the reality of what happened following the civil war. Yes, blacks were granted their freedom, but it was many years until they were treated as equals among whites, and were capable of earning enough money to live in nice homes and dress in nice clothes. 

Overall, we can see that Thomas Nast had an overly optimistic view of the fate of blacks in this country. The war still must be fought, reconstruction still must take place, and civil liberties must still be fought for before blacks have an equal shake in life compared to their white peers. Some may argue that they in fact still aren’t treated the same way as whites today.

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

By No Means Black and White

Michael Walzer proposed an interesting way to guide war based on morality in his book Just and Unjust Wars. Walzer combined both utilitarian (save the most people possible) and deontological (do what is right) reasoning in his theories. However, many problems arise in the non-classical world that we live in. Various notions Walzer uses are muddled up when we start to encounter hostile non-state combatants, wars waged on new fronts, and the expanding definition of self defense and humans’ rights. Many of his ideas are only feasible if the definition of self defense is universal and non-state actors are contained. I argue that many of Waltzer’s ideas are obsolete in the type of wars we encounter today. 

Walzer’s theory on aggression is especially fickle if we put it against the various types of aggression we see around us. He makes clear that any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or borders of another is considered a criminal act of aggression. His theory of aggression is very dependent on the fact that the aggressor and the aggressed are nation states with their own sovereignty and borders. 

First, we look at the resurgence of mercenaries in wars today. Various companies contract their services of violence to whichever nation pays their bills. When these men are employing violence, it can be hard to assess blame since they have allegiance to no nation. They are not a nation-state with their own borders and they are not soldiers of the nation that employed them. With this, problems arise when considering whom to wage war against and reasons for doing so are no longer clear cut. Along with Mercenaries, rebel and terrorist groups are rampant in today’s wars. Similarly, the actions of these groups against multiple nations make it difficult to access a guilty party. With the emergence of a great many non-state actors, we see many of Walzer’s ideas are dependent on every actor being a traditional nation, this makes them outdated when applied to today’s wars.

At the time of this book, wars were primarily fought with things such as guns and explosives. As we enter the twenty-first century, the concept of aggression itself must be stretched beyond traditional application. With the rise of the internet and reliance on computers, online aggression and hacking is also in the forefront of today’s world. Now that developed nation’s have the ability to do harm in ways never thought possible, greater stipulations must be applied to Walzer’s theories.

Walzer also claimed nations should enter wars where human rights are being violated. When this is coupled with his theory of aggression is often times very complicated. Since the area where the humanitarian crisis is taking place may in fact be a nation that does not recognize it as that. This constitutes that nation to respond to the aggression of the one defending the people’s rights. In order for this theory to work in practice, most or all nations must have the same definition of human rights. Yet again we see Walzer’s ideas being tested by the complicated wars of today.

I do want to mention that Walzer’s just war theory is applicable to wars that are in fact conventional and do meet the criteria he describes. Wars between traditional nation states, fought on traditional fronts, with identical definitions of humans’ rights can in fact use his ideas very well. What we have come to see, however, is that in the twenty-first century, classical notions of war are becoming more and more sparse, requiring this just war theory to be updated or a new one to be invented altogether.

#humantiy humcore war

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Vladimir Putin himself in Syria

Niccolo Machiavelli stated that a proper prince should be able to access both the nature of the lion and the fox. The lion is used to scare away the wolves and enemies alike, the fox is used to avoid traps and employ deceit. It is important, Machiavelli said, that one should appear like a lion while at the same time secretly employ deceit and avoid traps like a fox. Vladimir Putin entered the war in Syria to defend his ally, Bashar al-Asaad. He has started a bombing campaign against Bashar’s enemies (mainly the Free Syrian Army and ISIS). Since it has been shown that a strong military presence by the U.S. is doing little to remedy the situation in Syria, it is safe to assume that Russia has no hope of actually winning this war. However, by flexing his might as a world power, coming to the rescue of his ally, and fighting in the war against terrorism, Vladimir is appearing very much like a lion. At the same time, if Russia is involved in the war, they must be included if any sort of negotiations occur, giving them leverage on how the conflict is resolved. Machiavelli would applaud Putin and his adherence to Machiavelli’s principle, appear to be the lion and act as the fox.

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

TL;DR  The Prince Ch. 3

In Niccolo Machiavelli's chapter 3, the topic of “mixed’ principalities is the main focus. These are territories (principalities) that have been annexed or added to a ruler’s already existing kingdom. These somewhat new territories have inherent problems a ruler must face. When taking power in the region, you immediately offend two groups; those whom you fought against to achieve power, and those who helped you achieve power (since you cannot fulfill your promises to them). Also, in order to rule successfully in the region, you will need the support of the local lords or leaders.

Furthermore, we can classify these “mixed” territories into two categories, those with similar cultures and those with different cultures. Those with similar cultures are easy to keep and require two things. First, if they are hereditary (used to a bloodline of rulers), you must eradicate the noble lineage.Second, you must not alter their way of life, do not change their laws nor their taxes. 

Territories that are different in culture have two options which can be chosen from. Firstly, you can go there to live, allowing you to recognize and remedy disorders quickly. If not that, then you can send colonies to live there, taking the land from the poor (which cannot avenge), while preventing influence from foreign neighbors.

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Self Defense or Murder

Dash cam video shows Zachary Hammond shooting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJXS27felcg

In this post, I will detail how the video above does not completely and accurately portray the event that it claims to represent in its unbiased entirety. Before I begin, I will give a short summary of what happens in the video. We immediately see Officer Mark Tiller drive up and stop behind a parked silver car. He then exits the vehicle and draws his weapon as the vehicle is trying to drive away. He approaches the driver (Zachary Hammond) and begins to shout “Stop! Stop! Stop! Hands up! Put em’ up!” The driver does not respond and continues to drive. Officer Tiller then fires twice, shooting Zachary Hammond dead. 

This video has been mediated in several ways. First, the video is filmed from the officer’s dashboard camera, showing only one point of view, making it impossible for us to see what happens once the action moves outside of that camera’s view. Next, we do not see or know what was inside the vehicle that made the officer react in such a way, nor do we know of the information that Tiller may have had prior to approaching the vehicle. It is very possible that the officer received information that a person matching the driver’s description was armed and dangerous. There is much controversy as to whether or not the officer felt his life was in danger. This would make the distinction of shooting out of self defense or shooting offensively. From the perspective given by the dash cam, it appears that Officer Tiller’s life was not in danger of the moving vehicle. Throughout the video, Officer Tiller remained on the driver side of the vehicle, never stepping foot in front of it. Perhaps there is information that we are not aware of that made him feel his life was in danger. Moreover, this video is attempting to villainize Officer Tiller and victimize Zachary Hammond. 

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

Diomedes, Fist of Athena

At first glance, it may seem that Diomedes has no control over his actions when Athena intervenes with the war in book five of the Iliad. However, Diomedes is not Athena’s puppet, their intentions have merely aligned on this occasion. Therefore, I believe Diomedes does have agency in this passage, he is gladly accepting Athena’s assistance to arrive at a goal they share, destroying the Trojans and their allies.

At the very beginning of this passage Diomedes is confronted by Athena. She asks him why he and his men are not in the battle. Prior to this, Athena had given Diomedes command to not harm any of the gods in battle. He answers her question openly, “’I will tell you all, gladly. I’ll hide nothing. … It’s your command still ringing in my ears, forbidding me to fight the immortals head-on … Too well I know that Ares leads the charge’”(Homer, 5.941-951).  Diomedes is simply heeding Athena’s original command, he wants to please her because it will be much easier to defeat the Trojans with her help. In this case, we can also see that Athena does not approve of Diomedes’ choice to retreat from the battle and stand idle, by his actions upsetting her, it is obvious she does not have complete and total control over Diomedes.

Since Athena is upset with Diomedes’ decision to not fight Ares, in the following passage she physically helps Diomedes in the battle. She commands him to head straight for Ares, “’Up now! Lash your racing Horses at Ares first, … no shrinking away here’”(5.957-8), and jumps into Diomedes’ chariot to help him firsthand. “Athena levered Sthenelus out the back of the car. … springing aside as the goddess climbed aboard, blazing to fight beside the shining Diomedes.” She even “seized the reigns and whip” of the chariot and sent the horses charging for Ares (5.971-2). When the god and the warrior began their battle, Athena diverted Ares’ spear and forced Diomedes’ spear right into Ares’ gut(5.982-7). When Athena mentions to Diomedes “no shrinking away here” she is fearful that he may act out of cowardice, showing that she does not have dominion over Diomedes. To avoid this situation, she takes the reigns herself and thwarts Ares’ strike. The goddess makes it very hard for Diomedes to to deny her offers and commands, but through her language we can see that he does have a choice in how things play out.

Even though Athena commands Diomedes to act in a certain way, he still has the ability to act on his own accord, this is evident in the language she uses in her commands. Also, since Athena is having trouble changing the tide of battle indirectly she chooses to act directly, riding beside Diomedes and charging headfirst for Ares. This shows that she does not have control over Diomedes, but more so that she was feeling helpless in the battle unless she acted herself. Overall, Diomedes is not completely governed by Athena’s will, however their goals are nearly identical and because of this he will heed her commands.

#humanitiescore

[eagerforeternalrest-blog]

The Crux of Human Nature

Have you ever wondered why someone would do something so horrible? How about yourself, have you ever found yourself asking how you were capable of doing that? I’m not here to talk about loathing or even self-loathing, I’m here to help clear up the confusion. Studying the humanities can lead you to a better understanding of humanity itself.

Surprisingly, over the thousands of years that human beings have persisted on this planet, it has been found that many of the same drives and pressures back then affect us today. Society, love, power, lust, greed, pride, gluttony, these are all external and internal factors that will influence human behavior for the rest of their existence. By taking a look at the aspects of influence that alter our perspective we can only hope to understand the actions of others and help ourselves by trying to clear these pressures from our heads and think as clearly as possible. Studying the humanities, in this sense, is instrumentally valuable in two large ways.

Studying the humanities can make you a better individual. By looking at texts from far beyond our time, it teaches you to think from more than just your own perspective, it teaches you to look at things from many angles. You begin to consider how they felt or what they would’ve done. It also teaches you to be more just and rational with the decisions you make. You think less of yourself as the paramount being in life and see everyone as more of an equal. Selfishness dissipates from your conscious thought and you begin to value the idea of equality more so than before. Since you are human as well, you have a better understanding of yourself and the various pressures you face in daily life by studying those that effect others.

By understanding the pressures and drives affecting an individual, one can begin to predict their behavior or at the very least understand their actions after the fact. Instead of creating a nightmare of emotions caused by the confusion of an individuals actions, by understanding their motives and reasons for having those motives you can sleep much better at night. 

For example, lets use this train of thought on the attacks that took place on September 11, 2001. If we look at these attacks from a perspective of trying to understand the reasoning behind the involved individuals motives, we can save ourselves the confusion of why they did what they did and focus on how to prevent things like that from happening again. Many of the individuals, if not al,l were a part of a religious extremist group and knew very little other than this religion in their upbringing. Many of their friends and family are also a part of this group. This group breeds hate towards western civilization and love the civilization they are currently a part of, because they have known no other type of world. This group feels that death while doing a “righteous” act will grant them a direct route to paradise. With these pressures combined (society, poverty, anger, ideology, salvation, etc.) we can see how their judgement and perspectives have skewed them into acting in such a way. Without studying the humanities, it would be harder to see these pressures for what they are and one would be emotionally torn apart by confusion as well as the grief due to the events that occurred.

Overall, I feel that studying the humanities is extremely valuable and can help you in every day life by dealing with others and bettering yourself. What other study can help you so much in the understanding of human nature? Our lives revolve around it, we experience life through it, it would be a torment to go through life knowing so little about ourselves.

#humanitiescore