Why do people get married? Why is there a requirement for commitment that really, at a basic level, just doesn't make sense? Marriage suddenly makes a relationship contractual - not only are you claiming to know that the feelings you currently feel will never change, you're saying that if they do you'll stick it out anyway.
Forget why you'd ever want to make a commitment like that - why would you ever want to do that to your partner? Why would anyone ever choose to force a person to stay in a relationship they did not want to be in? That's the basic issue with relationship commitments: it's like you want a promise from the other person that their feelings won't change, that they'll stay with you. Relationship commitments are grounded in insecurity and selfishness...because the simple truth is that there's no reason to ask a person to stay committed to you who doesn't feel committed to you.
What's the right way to do it? Recognize that relationships are a choice. Recognize that both partners should be free to live and do as they wish - remove obligational commitments and instead accept that a relationship should only last as long as both people involved want it to.
Am I living in some ideal world again? Yes, I'd say so. The marriage institution is helpful in forcing people to stay together which can be helpful for children. I can't say for sure whether it's more damaging for the children to not only live near these unusual forced relationships (first by making things uncomfortable for them, and second by planting the idea in them that this is how relationships should work), but it seems to me that it's generally a good thing if a child is raised with two parents.
My problem is not with lasting relationships or relationships at all, it is the attitude that a contractual agreement is necessary or beneficial. My choice is to recognize that if I'm in a relationship, it's because it's a relationship I want to be in (and I choose to be in). Idealist or not, I'm not interested in staying in a relationship I'm unhappy with, and I don't expect any partner of mine to do the same.
------------------
This is partially inspired by some recent reading in Conversations with God, Book 3. I've been citing Conversations with God often recently. I'm going to go ahead and officially recommend it to anyone with an interest in self-improvement. It will be a difficult read if you have a particular faith - for the most part, it's very anti-religion as most religions are currently constructed. It was also very difficult for me to begin due to the premise...but if you believe that most answers on how to live life can be found by looking internally for the answers - that is, if you use your own logic and intuition to make decisions - I highly recommend the trilogy.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Sunday, June 03, 2007
New layout
I think I'll try to use this picture to create my new blog layout (click for larger version)
Syriana
I watched Syriana. It was a good movie, but I feel it unfortunately failed in an important area:
It failed to make things clear to people who have a hard time understanding world politics or similar issues.
Syriana is a confusing movie. Ebert was one of the few critics who thought this trait was laudable - the confusion, he claimed, was representative of how the characters felt. The movie was arranged in such a way that it was almost intentionally difficult to follow. I made a distinct effort to pay close attention to the movie, and I turned on the subtitles so as not to miss subtleties in speech when I realized the movie would not be easy to follow, and I still rushed online after the movie was over to verify that the movie was about what I thought it was about.
Perhaps the difficult delivery makes the movie a better movie, a more entertaining movie out of a movie that's meant to entertain. It's just that...it doesn't seem the sole purpose of this movie is entertainment. Syriana isn't preachy and it doesn't try to force an agenda down your throats, rather it does a fairly good job of synthesizing the information about how things got the way they are now, and how people can become the way they are when it seems so inexplicable. I'm not going to jump to cliches and say that Syriana wants to explain the inexplicable: it's just that it's an informative and insightful and mostly unbiased depiction.
One theme in Syriana is that there are no evil people, just people who do what they believe is right. It's our moral systems that become deranged, the sense of right and wrong: not the desire to do right or wrong. On some level, I have to agree. I've been labeled naive for expressing this viewpoint before, but in my experience it seems that on some basic level we all do what we believe is right - there are just different levels of awareness and different perspectives that turn right and wrong into a relative (not absolute) issue. No one lives a life doing things they know are wrong. In Syriana, a very normal - perhaps the most likable character in the movie - young Arab ends up joining a right-wing fundamentalist Islamic group. Why? He thinks it's the right thing to do. He wants to help his mother, his father, and he recognizes the unfairness of the life situation he is in.
Coming back to my original point, I'm disappointed in the movie because while the issue is complicated, I feel that if things were presented more clearly the movie may have done a better job of promoting awareness. I won't argue that the way to attract the attention of the general American populace is with entertainment - if this had been an informational documentary, I wouldn't be talking to you about it because I probably wouldn't have even heard about it. It's just that I wish the information had been conveyed in a simpler, clearer way. As it stands it appeals primarily to pseudo-intellectuals like myself or to other people who already have a basic understanding of the issue.
There are huge problems in the Middle East. By consuming oil, we are indirectly sanctioning the practices involved in retrieving said oil. But instead of looking at the atrocious situation and understanding that the practices for retrieving oil are not OK, are not acceptable...we hide behind claims that it's too complicated to understand. Or we convince ourselves that because it's not our country, it's somehow not our problem.
It's not that no one cares, it's that not enough people care. It's that the power is in the hands of people who place a premium (har har pun intended) on profit and American economy rather than humanitarianism and world economy. I fear that history books will not have nice things to say about 21st century America and it's policies: both domestic and foreign.
Edit:
One extra thought I have to add to this is the ironic self-contradiction I'm committing here. While I wish the movie had been "dumbed-down" a bit, I find myself constantly annoyed at how I can't stand most popular culture precisely because of how dumbed-down it is. Mass entertainment needs to cater to the lowest common denominator, and people tend to be much willing to "step down" as far as things being intellectually challenging than to step up.
It failed to make things clear to people who have a hard time understanding world politics or similar issues.
Syriana is a confusing movie. Ebert was one of the few critics who thought this trait was laudable - the confusion, he claimed, was representative of how the characters felt. The movie was arranged in such a way that it was almost intentionally difficult to follow. I made a distinct effort to pay close attention to the movie, and I turned on the subtitles so as not to miss subtleties in speech when I realized the movie would not be easy to follow, and I still rushed online after the movie was over to verify that the movie was about what I thought it was about.
Perhaps the difficult delivery makes the movie a better movie, a more entertaining movie out of a movie that's meant to entertain. It's just that...it doesn't seem the sole purpose of this movie is entertainment. Syriana isn't preachy and it doesn't try to force an agenda down your throats, rather it does a fairly good job of synthesizing the information about how things got the way they are now, and how people can become the way they are when it seems so inexplicable. I'm not going to jump to cliches and say that Syriana wants to explain the inexplicable: it's just that it's an informative and insightful and mostly unbiased depiction.
One theme in Syriana is that there are no evil people, just people who do what they believe is right. It's our moral systems that become deranged, the sense of right and wrong: not the desire to do right or wrong. On some level, I have to agree. I've been labeled naive for expressing this viewpoint before, but in my experience it seems that on some basic level we all do what we believe is right - there are just different levels of awareness and different perspectives that turn right and wrong into a relative (not absolute) issue. No one lives a life doing things they know are wrong. In Syriana, a very normal - perhaps the most likable character in the movie - young Arab ends up joining a right-wing fundamentalist Islamic group. Why? He thinks it's the right thing to do. He wants to help his mother, his father, and he recognizes the unfairness of the life situation he is in.
Coming back to my original point, I'm disappointed in the movie because while the issue is complicated, I feel that if things were presented more clearly the movie may have done a better job of promoting awareness. I won't argue that the way to attract the attention of the general American populace is with entertainment - if this had been an informational documentary, I wouldn't be talking to you about it because I probably wouldn't have even heard about it. It's just that I wish the information had been conveyed in a simpler, clearer way. As it stands it appeals primarily to pseudo-intellectuals like myself or to other people who already have a basic understanding of the issue.
There are huge problems in the Middle East. By consuming oil, we are indirectly sanctioning the practices involved in retrieving said oil. But instead of looking at the atrocious situation and understanding that the practices for retrieving oil are not OK, are not acceptable...we hide behind claims that it's too complicated to understand. Or we convince ourselves that because it's not our country, it's somehow not our problem.
It's not that no one cares, it's that not enough people care. It's that the power is in the hands of people who place a premium (har har pun intended) on profit and American economy rather than humanitarianism and world economy. I fear that history books will not have nice things to say about 21st century America and it's policies: both domestic and foreign.
Edit:
One extra thought I have to add to this is the ironic self-contradiction I'm committing here. While I wish the movie had been "dumbed-down" a bit, I find myself constantly annoyed at how I can't stand most popular culture precisely because of how dumbed-down it is. Mass entertainment needs to cater to the lowest common denominator, and people tend to be much willing to "step down" as far as things being intellectually challenging than to step up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
