Okay, so there is an obvious answer to this question, especially in the global society we have today. We find out, mostly, what's going on in the world through the stories published and broadcasted through mass media, and now even through the new media called the internet.
When we become curious about what is happening somewhere across the globe, we can simply ask the question and find an answer on a website, newspaper article, radio or telecast. It really is as simple as that if the question is simply "What is happening?"
Yet there's another layer to the question. How do we know if what we find out is the truth? I'm asking this in such a way that I skip the question of whether the news is objective since I believe that there is no such thing. Objectivity is a myth because every human being is influenced by his environment, experiences, and ideals. So, then, how do we know how much of what we find out is the truth and how much is fabricated to meet the ends of those people who control these sources of information?
It's a very difficult question and can only be answered by the suggestion to be quite critical in absorbing news. We can choose to take things in at face value, but that would only give us a surface knowledge of the on-goings in the world. To search beneath that, and beyond that, is to discover events from many different perspectives.
We can find out what's going on in the world, through second and third accounts, but it is up to us to accept or reject the information that is fed to us. Our own interpretations of the world is important, not only for our acquisition of knowledge, but also for our view of the world and what should be done.
From the events and news reporting from many different examples of wars, we know that the government and military can either try to control the media or allow themselves to be checked by journalists. So media can be used as both a witness to the truth behind patriotic propaganda and as a means of manipulating the audiences.
It's even more important then, to question mediated information, and really look further than just one story to know what's going on.
------------------
I particularly liked this chapter because of its media-relatedness. And how so much of it is true (it is concurrent with media and society theory I've studied). :)
One other note was this side bar in the book (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss):
Don McCullin, War Photographer -- became depressed about the morally ambiguous position of the war photographer: "If you are a witness to such suffering, shouldn't you try and help instead of standing back and taking pictures?"
It is similar to a story I came across last year, about Kevin Carter, a 1994 Pulitzer Prize winner for feature photography because of his photojournalism of a starving Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture. (photo and story can be seen here: http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm)
Carter suffered depression as much as elation in his job before the emotion evoked by this winning photo led to his suicide in the same year.
29.1.10
(CL) How Do Religious Beliefs Affect Politics?
Attempts have been made time and again to separate religious beliefs from politics. Constitutions in several democratic countries place a heavy implication that the state should be able to work independently from the church, and vice versa, in as so much as they don't break the law.
The chapter in the book(Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)* presents a very thorough description of the word "religion," but it is, in simple terms, any system of symbols and practices established from a certain set of values that its people should ascribe, more or less strictly to.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, like that of the United States, also has this briefly and clearly stated in Article II (The Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 6. It states, and I quote, "The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable."
But also like the U.S., "religion features heavily in political discourse."* In countries like the Philippines, where there is one religion among majority of the population, it is easy for the Church to hold a significant amount of political influence on those who ascribe to the teachings of the Church.
Discourse is described as a situation where a person with authority speaks to influence another person/group's view.
In the case of the Church in the Philippine, religion does feature prominently in the workings of the state, such as in the case of the Reproductive Health Bill which the Church vehemently opposed and informed its clergy of its decision and encouraged similar stands.
Although, in scholarly recordings, it seems questionable that there are very few, if any at all, incidents reported relating religion with state-actions. It's as if they actually believed in the separation of the church and the state, yet all evidence should point otherwise.
Many people, of some religion, somewhere, are shaped by their formation in various aspects of their lives, religion included. So to say that religious belief has no weight on political decisions is naive.
Religious beliefs comes with values of a certain kind that come into play, especially when deciding on questionable (im)moral activities. It is nearly as normal and as built in to a person as their education and familial background. It isn't some sort of unfathomable force, but one which shapes the thought processes of each religious buff.
Therefore, i think religion is as influential in politics as education and personal background. The values and experiences you gain from being of a certain religion contributes to the way you think and the way you believe things should be done.
The chapter in the book(Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)* presents a very thorough description of the word "religion," but it is, in simple terms, any system of symbols and practices established from a certain set of values that its people should ascribe, more or less strictly to.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, like that of the United States, also has this briefly and clearly stated in Article II (The Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 6. It states, and I quote, "The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable."
But also like the U.S., "religion features heavily in political discourse."* In countries like the Philippines, where there is one religion among majority of the population, it is easy for the Church to hold a significant amount of political influence on those who ascribe to the teachings of the Church.
Discourse is described as a situation where a person with authority speaks to influence another person/group's view.
In the case of the Church in the Philippine, religion does feature prominently in the workings of the state, such as in the case of the Reproductive Health Bill which the Church vehemently opposed and informed its clergy of its decision and encouraged similar stands.
Although, in scholarly recordings, it seems questionable that there are very few, if any at all, incidents reported relating religion with state-actions. It's as if they actually believed in the separation of the church and the state, yet all evidence should point otherwise.
Many people, of some religion, somewhere, are shaped by their formation in various aspects of their lives, religion included. So to say that religious belief has no weight on political decisions is naive.
Religious beliefs comes with values of a certain kind that come into play, especially when deciding on questionable (im)moral activities. It is nearly as normal and as built in to a person as their education and familial background. It isn't some sort of unfathomable force, but one which shapes the thought processes of each religious buff.
Therefore, i think religion is as influential in politics as education and personal background. The values and experiences you gain from being of a certain religion contributes to the way you think and the way you believe things should be done.
21.1.10
(CL) Leaving Human Terms Behind for real?
Well, I was sort of right the first time around. With "Human" as having form or attribute representative of human nature. It is human nature to be individualistic, since each person has their own mind and own will, desires, needs, and others.
So, "Human terms" comes out to mean something more like an individualistic mindset, where each person thinks mainly about themselves and their own advancement, whatever is convenient for them.
Thinking in human terms has the effect of separating nature and society and thinking only of the latter, making the former merely resources and commodities that should be exploited for immediate commercial profits.
"It's a mode of existence that simply doesn't think that environment matters that much." (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)*
What happens, then, if we leave human terms behind?
Unlike my original answer, it looks as if it could be more of a positive thing.
If we put our selfish individualism aside, we could realize the problems that are beginning to plague the world and actually do something about it. If people would look past their own interests, we could possibly spend a lot trying to prevent what we would spend SO much more trying to fix.
We, as one human race, could race to prevent, the following:
"Potential disruptions as a result of storms, cooling in Europe, droughts in agricultural regions and such things as sea level rises are what drives much of the concern about climate change."*
Without, or instead of, the shunting of responsibility and accountability to those countries with too little power to do anything about this passing along of consequences. After all, the book does also say that, "If these disruptions coincide with major warfare in the Middle East or some other source of trade disruption, the potential for human suffering will be immense."*
Pretty clear message. But wait...there's more to me.
The thing that annoys me though, about the discussion of this concept in the book is that it is still so much in human terms. Even though it questions the human individualistic mindset, it is still so limited.
One of the questions phrased goes, "Environmental justice for whom?"* For whom??? Why not for the sake of the beauty of the environment than the selfish sake of the good of mankind and mankind alone? The concern for the environment discussed in the book still revolves around human interests.
So how bout we leave human terms behind, a better effort at it, at least. There are so many artists who depict the beauty of the environment, be it natural landscapes or urban cityscapes. Wouldn't it be nice, even in this class of globalization and development, to not only consider the development of the human race but also for the planet that we live on? For its own preservation and not for fear of what will happen to us when the consequences of civilization-induced pollution finally tip the scales.
So, "Human terms" comes out to mean something more like an individualistic mindset, where each person thinks mainly about themselves and their own advancement, whatever is convenient for them.
Thinking in human terms has the effect of separating nature and society and thinking only of the latter, making the former merely resources and commodities that should be exploited for immediate commercial profits.
"It's a mode of existence that simply doesn't think that environment matters that much." (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)*
What happens, then, if we leave human terms behind?
Unlike my original answer, it looks as if it could be more of a positive thing.
If we put our selfish individualism aside, we could realize the problems that are beginning to plague the world and actually do something about it. If people would look past their own interests, we could possibly spend a lot trying to prevent what we would spend SO much more trying to fix.
We, as one human race, could race to prevent, the following:
"Potential disruptions as a result of storms, cooling in Europe, droughts in agricultural regions and such things as sea level rises are what drives much of the concern about climate change."*
Without, or instead of, the shunting of responsibility and accountability to those countries with too little power to do anything about this passing along of consequences. After all, the book does also say that, "If these disruptions coincide with major warfare in the Middle East or some other source of trade disruption, the potential for human suffering will be immense."*
Pretty clear message. But wait...there's more to me.
The thing that annoys me though, about the discussion of this concept in the book is that it is still so much in human terms. Even though it questions the human individualistic mindset, it is still so limited.
One of the questions phrased goes, "Environmental justice for whom?"* For whom??? Why not for the sake of the beauty of the environment than the selfish sake of the good of mankind and mankind alone? The concern for the environment discussed in the book still revolves around human interests.
So how bout we leave human terms behind, a better effort at it, at least. There are so many artists who depict the beauty of the environment, be it natural landscapes or urban cityscapes. Wouldn't it be nice, even in this class of globalization and development, to not only consider the development of the human race but also for the planet that we live on? For its own preservation and not for fear of what will happen to us when the consequences of civilization-induced pollution finally tip the scales.
19.1.10
(CL) What Happens If We Don't Think In Human Terms?
I wanted to do this blog with some kind of insight on the book... any kind of insight for that matter, but I still can't find the book anywhere, so allow me to grasp at straws.
As usual, I have to go in and define a term to make it easier to answer the question.
What are "human terms?"
In all honesty, I can't think of a solid definition for the term, nor have I been able to find anything conclusive, so all I'm left with are guesses, and hopefully I'm not too far off the mark.
"Human terms"
In the effort to come up with an accurate definition, I looked up the meaning of each word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and will try to combine them into something coherent.
Human: having form or attribute representative of human nature.
Terms: A word or expression that has a precise meaning.
In this way, I'd say that "human terms" are words or phrases coined to capture a certain aspect of human nature, something intrinsic to humans that they instinctively understand the meaning even if no words could be present during the communication.
In Philosophy, I learned that it is part of a Western mindset to have a rational and logical side. The mind, which is in control there, is prone to naming and labeling things so that it is easier to compare, to evaluate, and to rationalize. Perhaps then, this is what human terms mean (since not many people achieve the more confusing Eastern mindset -- most people think on the same plain), ideas that most, if not all, humans will understand.
Bearing that in mind, what happens if we don't think in human terms?
Well, I think most prominently, the problem would be the breakdown of communication between humans. If we don't think in human terms, then it would be very difficult for others to measure and quantify whatever it is that we want to say.
Using human terms allows people to come to understandings and agreements, so if that should fall apart, I think it would hinder the ability of any two people or parties the ability to understand whatever thought that one has. Failure to communicate on a small level would only translate to the larger and larger groups of people.
Ultimately, I think things like this would hinder any kind of understanding and perhaps even development between people and, on the larger scale, between nations.
As usual, I have to go in and define a term to make it easier to answer the question.
What are "human terms?"
In all honesty, I can't think of a solid definition for the term, nor have I been able to find anything conclusive, so all I'm left with are guesses, and hopefully I'm not too far off the mark.
"Human terms"
In the effort to come up with an accurate definition, I looked up the meaning of each word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and will try to combine them into something coherent.
Human: having form or attribute representative of human nature.
Terms: A word or expression that has a precise meaning.
In this way, I'd say that "human terms" are words or phrases coined to capture a certain aspect of human nature, something intrinsic to humans that they instinctively understand the meaning even if no words could be present during the communication.
In Philosophy, I learned that it is part of a Western mindset to have a rational and logical side. The mind, which is in control there, is prone to naming and labeling things so that it is easier to compare, to evaluate, and to rationalize. Perhaps then, this is what human terms mean (since not many people achieve the more confusing Eastern mindset -- most people think on the same plain), ideas that most, if not all, humans will understand.
Bearing that in mind, what happens if we don't think in human terms?
Well, I think most prominently, the problem would be the breakdown of communication between humans. If we don't think in human terms, then it would be very difficult for others to measure and quantify whatever it is that we want to say.
Using human terms allows people to come to understandings and agreements, so if that should fall apart, I think it would hinder the ability of any two people or parties the ability to understand whatever thought that one has. Failure to communicate on a small level would only translate to the larger and larger groups of people.
Ultimately, I think things like this would hinder any kind of understanding and perhaps even development between people and, on the larger scale, between nations.
18.1.10
(ML) How Do We Begin To Think About The World?
The question is really a very vague and general subject that could go any which way.
I suppose the best way in which to start would be to think about the question in fragments... The first part being: "How do we begin to think?"
To try and explain the full psychology of how a person could think would be both futile and unnecessarily lengthy for the purpose I have in mind today, but I suppose the best I can do would be to cover what I think would be relevant in this discussion.
Basically people process experiences, things, or events through their own senses or at least by their own understanding, if they are experiencing things vicariously through the information given to them by others. "Beginning to think" is the stage after taking in information. It is the time wherein they take the information they have and store it either as pure as they can as new knowledge, or interpret through the many different dispositions and biases previously acquired.
Therefore, how we begin to think could follow this pattern: receiving information -> interpreting it according to our own perspectives -> forming our conclusions about the information. This could all just happen in seconds compared to the actual process of thinking in which the conclusions we draw are utilized in the way that we think and express opinions, and for the reasoning we use to make decisions about how to live our lives. This is how people filter information and decide where to place their interest and energy.
The second fragment of the question would be: "What is the world?"
This is, by all means, a simpler question than the first, and yet, perhaps more important in answering the question as a whole. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary presents approximately fourteen definitions for the word "world" and to not narrow down the specific meaning that we want to answer in the main question would be to trivialize answering the question at all. Personally, I think the definition best suited for this situation would be, "the system created by human society by which we comprehend both human affairs and those of the earth." It's really quite convoluted, but I simply mean to refer to the world as not just a rock, but as the place where everything happens.
Now, how do we begin to think about the world?
As one of my friends put it,
(Mangahas, 2010) :)
Where do we start, then? Well, the "world," this situation in which we find ourselves, is local as well as global. So, my suggestion would be to work from the inside out, from small scale up to the international scale. For it's in my general belief that things in the most basic units have a way of persisting even as the units become more complex, so there are usually similarities that make it easier to understand things on the global level when we know how they work in simpler units.
I suppose the best way in which to start would be to think about the question in fragments... The first part being: "How do we begin to think?"
To try and explain the full psychology of how a person could think would be both futile and unnecessarily lengthy for the purpose I have in mind today, but I suppose the best I can do would be to cover what I think would be relevant in this discussion.
Basically people process experiences, things, or events through their own senses or at least by their own understanding, if they are experiencing things vicariously through the information given to them by others. "Beginning to think" is the stage after taking in information. It is the time wherein they take the information they have and store it either as pure as they can as new knowledge, or interpret through the many different dispositions and biases previously acquired.
Therefore, how we begin to think could follow this pattern: receiving information -> interpreting it according to our own perspectives -> forming our conclusions about the information. This could all just happen in seconds compared to the actual process of thinking in which the conclusions we draw are utilized in the way that we think and express opinions, and for the reasoning we use to make decisions about how to live our lives. This is how people filter information and decide where to place their interest and energy.
The second fragment of the question would be: "What is the world?"
This is, by all means, a simpler question than the first, and yet, perhaps more important in answering the question as a whole. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary presents approximately fourteen definitions for the word "world" and to not narrow down the specific meaning that we want to answer in the main question would be to trivialize answering the question at all. Personally, I think the definition best suited for this situation would be, "the system created by human society by which we comprehend both human affairs and those of the earth." It's really quite convoluted, but I simply mean to refer to the world as not just a rock, but as the place where everything happens.
Now, how do we begin to think about the world?
As one of my friends put it,
There are two ways to view the world:
If you view the world in a pessimistic way,
You see the disasters
You see the corruption
The hopelessness
Most people are evil, they just step on others.
If you view it in a optimistic way,
The world is beautiful
If you look around you, there is life, filling to the brim
There is hope
There is always "another day" to start over.
(Mangahas, 2010) :)
Where do we start, then? Well, the "world," this situation in which we find ourselves, is local as well as global. So, my suggestion would be to work from the inside out, from small scale up to the international scale. For it's in my general belief that things in the most basic units have a way of persisting even as the units become more complex, so there are usually similarities that make it easier to understand things on the global level when we know how they work in simpler units.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)