Saturday, October 17, 2009
The Christian States of America?
There is no “true” religion. A critical distinction few Americans realize is the difference between the freedom to, as opposed to the freedom from. This aside, our country was founded by a group of secular humanists (albeit some were Deists, though these are not mutually exclusive belief structures) in a manner that allows everyone the freedom to practice whatever they wish so long as everyone is free from the opinions of others. The very concept of a separate church and state implies that ANY religious belief structure must fundamentally be removed from the state. References to “God” made by men like Franklin were to a greater understanding of the universe as a whole and not the Judeo-Christian god as so many would like to claim. References to “God” in various documents were commonplace for the time, and are in no way restricted by a narrow opinion of the title often given to the Judeo-Christian Deity. There is nothing to say that the God in which we trust is the God of Adam, David or Abraham.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
We Are Not All "Beautiful"
There is a commercial out, perhaps you have seen it, where a model is taken into a studio and it speeds through the process of physical (makeup, styling, etc.) and digital editing to arrive at “her” picture on a billboard. (1) The end of the commercial states, in plain white letters on a black background, “No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted, every girl deserves to feel beautiful just the way she is.” This commercial has created a stir of support about how the portrayal of beauty by Society and the Media negatively impacts the self-esteem of girls and women. Here are two quick statistics that appear to support this thesis:
• One in four college-age women attempt to control their weight in an unhealthy manner (fasting, skipping meals, excessive exercise, laxative abuse, and self-induced vomiting). (2)
• Girls as young five and six are taking weight control measures. (3)
If taken out of context, this can be incredibly scary, especially to people who are trying to help girls have a more positive self-image. The problem is, the data is taken out of context. Compare the preceding statistics with the following:
• Two-thirds of adults 20 YOA and older are overweight or obese. (This is prime college age) (4)
• 15% of children ages 6-11, and 11% of 2-5 year-olds are overweight. (5)
This information tends to change the perspective of the first set of statistics.
There is an epidemic of excess and complacency that permeates the whole of American society. Herein lies the major problem with the, “You deserve to feel beautiful just the way you are” idea. It promotes satisfaction with a lifestyle that may be, and often times is, unhealthy. This is not to say that obsessive, or unhealthy weight loss is ever a good idea, however by encouraging external beauty, as the only road to happiness in any form is harmful, especially when combined with a mantra of, “you are a ‘beautiful’ person too.”
Now comes the second crux, the equivocation of the usage of the word “beauty.” This is to say, one does not have to be physically beautiful, in order to be “beautiful.” Although this intermingling of meanings is not inherently harmful, it does become so when directly combined with a comparison to physical beauty, as is often the case. Objective Reality is that some people are more physically attractive then others, just as some people are more intelligent, better athletes or world-class musicians and others are not. However, physical beauty is the only term that is used to describe one’s inherent worth as a person. Indeed, when one is told they have a “beautiful personality,” oftentimes this is a way of defining that they posses an attractive set of non-visible characteristics while simultaneously implying they are physically unattractive, because beauty is an aesthetic judgment.
Referring back to the original commercial, the deconstruction of billboard beauty IS helpful to show that perhaps our understanding, and the portrayal of physical beauty is skewed, when we apply the same judgments to people we see walking down the street without makeup, or digital enhancements. However, when the final closing sentiment, the “framing” of the commercial, is revealed, the audience is left feeling horrified that little girls are comparing themselves to fake images and feeling ugly. Herein lies another, more subtle, issue; to focus on the lack (albeit, possibly unfairly so) of any particular, fundamentally unchangeable attribute or attributes is destructive, both to the persons lacking those attributes, as well as to those that do posses them. The harm to those lacking these attributes, namely beauty, is caused by emphasizing their unchangeable short-comings, whereas self esteem should be boosted by highlighting the individuals strong suits, and working to improve any areas that can be. Conversely, by stating, “everyone should feel beautiful,” as it relates directly to physical attractiveness, downplays, or demonizes people who are physically attractive. This is no different than saying everyone in a genius, or everyone should feel they posses the athleticism and physical superiority to be a professional athlete. Not only are these statements oftentimes blatantly false, they also create incredible feelings of disappointment when these unfairly lofty goals are not met. Additionally, by asserting that the elite traits of certain individuals are mundane it devalues both the attributes as well as the individual. Lastly, by asserting that one already possesses these much-desired attributes, it leaves little incentive to strive for goals that are within reach, to better oneself for one’s own sake.
The problems that face the American youth are terrifying, but often not in the ways most people believe. The “Media’s” portrayal of illusionary “beauty” is not the cause of self-esteem issues; rather, it is a symptom. Telling girls that they are beautiful when they are not enforces the idea of illusionary beauty; by undermining and deconstructing the word “beautiful” while still using it’s original definition. It does not enable self-actualization; it enables delusion, which only furthers self-esteem issues.
(1) http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=549997458733
(2) http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_beauty.cfm
(3) Ibid
(4) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm
(5) Ibid
• One in four college-age women attempt to control their weight in an unhealthy manner (fasting, skipping meals, excessive exercise, laxative abuse, and self-induced vomiting). (2)
• Girls as young five and six are taking weight control measures. (3)
If taken out of context, this can be incredibly scary, especially to people who are trying to help girls have a more positive self-image. The problem is, the data is taken out of context. Compare the preceding statistics with the following:
• Two-thirds of adults 20 YOA and older are overweight or obese. (This is prime college age) (4)
• 15% of children ages 6-11, and 11% of 2-5 year-olds are overweight. (5)
This information tends to change the perspective of the first set of statistics.
There is an epidemic of excess and complacency that permeates the whole of American society. Herein lies the major problem with the, “You deserve to feel beautiful just the way you are” idea. It promotes satisfaction with a lifestyle that may be, and often times is, unhealthy. This is not to say that obsessive, or unhealthy weight loss is ever a good idea, however by encouraging external beauty, as the only road to happiness in any form is harmful, especially when combined with a mantra of, “you are a ‘beautiful’ person too.”
Now comes the second crux, the equivocation of the usage of the word “beauty.” This is to say, one does not have to be physically beautiful, in order to be “beautiful.” Although this intermingling of meanings is not inherently harmful, it does become so when directly combined with a comparison to physical beauty, as is often the case. Objective Reality is that some people are more physically attractive then others, just as some people are more intelligent, better athletes or world-class musicians and others are not. However, physical beauty is the only term that is used to describe one’s inherent worth as a person. Indeed, when one is told they have a “beautiful personality,” oftentimes this is a way of defining that they posses an attractive set of non-visible characteristics while simultaneously implying they are physically unattractive, because beauty is an aesthetic judgment.
Referring back to the original commercial, the deconstruction of billboard beauty IS helpful to show that perhaps our understanding, and the portrayal of physical beauty is skewed, when we apply the same judgments to people we see walking down the street without makeup, or digital enhancements. However, when the final closing sentiment, the “framing” of the commercial, is revealed, the audience is left feeling horrified that little girls are comparing themselves to fake images and feeling ugly. Herein lies another, more subtle, issue; to focus on the lack (albeit, possibly unfairly so) of any particular, fundamentally unchangeable attribute or attributes is destructive, both to the persons lacking those attributes, as well as to those that do posses them. The harm to those lacking these attributes, namely beauty, is caused by emphasizing their unchangeable short-comings, whereas self esteem should be boosted by highlighting the individuals strong suits, and working to improve any areas that can be. Conversely, by stating, “everyone should feel beautiful,” as it relates directly to physical attractiveness, downplays, or demonizes people who are physically attractive. This is no different than saying everyone in a genius, or everyone should feel they posses the athleticism and physical superiority to be a professional athlete. Not only are these statements oftentimes blatantly false, they also create incredible feelings of disappointment when these unfairly lofty goals are not met. Additionally, by asserting that the elite traits of certain individuals are mundane it devalues both the attributes as well as the individual. Lastly, by asserting that one already possesses these much-desired attributes, it leaves little incentive to strive for goals that are within reach, to better oneself for one’s own sake.
The problems that face the American youth are terrifying, but often not in the ways most people believe. The “Media’s” portrayal of illusionary “beauty” is not the cause of self-esteem issues; rather, it is a symptom. Telling girls that they are beautiful when they are not enforces the idea of illusionary beauty; by undermining and deconstructing the word “beautiful” while still using it’s original definition. It does not enable self-actualization; it enables delusion, which only furthers self-esteem issues.
(1) http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=549997458733
(2) http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_beauty.cfm
(3) Ibid
(4) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm
(5) Ibid
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Enlightened Censorship
I received a recent objection to my article, “Message to the Ignorant,” that I feel needs to be addressed. I was told that my attempt to enlighten and argue for clean, fair debate was, in fact, a fascist attempt to quash legitimate discourse and debate. I was quoted John Stuart Mill’s form of liberty of speech, that any form of censorship is wrong due to its possible value to society as a whole[1]. I believe that if you agree with this objection then you fully misunderstand my argument. If you think I am arguing for the suppression of such beliefs or statements made out of ignorance by individuals who lack the understanding and knowledge of what they, themselves think, then you most likely fall into this group and are sadly mistaken. Although Mill’s Liberalism was indeed a governing idea behind our inalienable freedoms, his alone were not the ideas of liberty that our government was founded on. Mill’s ideas on freedom of speech are almost entirely unrestricted, which few, if any, systems of government support. Even within the extremes of libertarianism or anarchy, it is commonplace to put limits on freedom of speech, especially with regards to slander, libel, inciting-to-violence and child pornography just to name a few. Even with his unrestricted freedoms, Mill opposes blatant name-calling and outrageous claims. In fact, as he says, “It is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them upon others unless they are quite sure of being right.” Although trying to defend all persons, it is clear that he is intending to defend well-founded beliefs and true knowledge. On the matter of true or good opinions/beliefs, I must defer to Hume who definitively argues that good beliefs are those based upon concrete, experiential evidence such as the sun rising tomorrow, and not unfounded beliefs based in nothing but conjecture like faith in god. To further this point, Socrates, as interpreted by McDonald states, “knowledge includes the reasoning that supports the truth.”
In no way am I arguing against dissent, I am arguing against ignorance, and unfounded “knowledge”. I am not arguing that you should not have the right to be ignorant, I am simply requesting you refrain positing your absurd “opinion” for everyone’s sake. As far as my classifications for informed opinion and intelligent dissent, read more Mill and supplement Hume. Repeat twice daily until cured (as prescribed by my girlfriend).
We absolutely should not tolerate ignorant, abhorrent ideas and ideals, it is our duty to point them out and protest them. We must unveil sheepism and demagoguery for what it is, for it is our duty as rational beings, and Americans. We should NOT tolerate hatred and bigotry. To hide behind liberal subjectivism and spout it as tolerance is horribly misguided and dangerous. We should not quash speech, though we have a moral requirement to uphold the truth to the best of our abilities. Be careful of your slippery slope argument. Governmental repression of non-harmful ideas (notable exceptions include: libel, slander, inciting a riot, child corruption, etc.) should be fought on all counts. However one restriction does not imply other restrictions. Each issue should be fought on it’s own merits and future issues should hold minimal sway on the argument at hand.
[1] I realize this is a gross oversimplification, and to truly understand it, you must read On Liberty by J.S, Mill, however I feel it does justice to the argument I was presented with.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)