So, after today's totally righteous ToK debate regarding the dilemma of whether or not the individual human can "do something," I feel compelled to offer an idea. I am afraid that we will have class cancelled next Saturday/Sunday, I will be gone to France the Saturday/Sunday after that, and the momentum of our provocative discussion will wane. So, here it is: Honestly, I have no idea whether or not an individual can enact meaningful change, and I suspect that this opinion is a particularly valid one. Given the nature of societal behavior and the lessons of history, human beings are remarkably effective at achieving inequality, enacting violence, and maintaining ignorance. Further, I am fairly confident that this will not change on a grand scale; I am realistic enough to know better, but I am also enough of an idealist to expect more from myself. And, the fact is, I am a teacher in a unique opportunity to create the impression in my students that they can transcend expectations, break (real or imagined) boundaries, and defy routines. As Hareth pointed out, our world is replete with issues, all of which probably need confronted either actively or passively, yet doing so would obviously be overwhelming. But, I also do not embrace the alternative point of view, which is do nothing because the perceived magnitude of the problem is bigger than my ability to do something about it. You are stronger, more influential, more dynamic, smarter, capable than you think. Trust me on that one (I am an authority, eh?). And those qualities do not come for free. You are getting an education, and a pretty darn good one, and when you are done here, guess what? You go on to get more, and the more you get the more you have to consider the possibility that you have a responsibility to do something with it that is bigger than you. Okay, so maybe children in West Africa just "need to fill a role," but what if there is untapped genius in there wasting its time molding chocolate shapes into fancy designs? I mean real genius. The cure for AIDS, cancer, great writers, guitar prodigies, peace activists, world-class educators, and so on? We can bet there is. Heck, given the size of the community (what, several million children in the grand scheme?) there may be several. We all might benefit from building schools and not buying diamonds, eating chocolate, and rationalizing the whole thing by saying "hey, that's just the way it is." You do realize, I hope, that what we are talking about here is a truth theory (it fits fairly neatly into both coherence and pragmatic), but do think on this: if you consider how your chocolate consumption fits into the bigger picture, you might ask yourself if you don't feel like you can make a difference or if you simply deny your ability to make a difference because of your perception of the task. Hard? Of course. Worth it? Maybe.
Now, I am tired and my day's allowance of sanity is waning, so I'd appreciate it if you would bear with me for a moment. I know that some of you are skeptical that much good can be done in the Big Bad World. There are too many opportunities for corruption on our planet. Attempts to make the world a better place is futile. Didn't we discuss this before? When we discussed little boxes and Into the Wild. I think we'd hate to imagine our world as a static environment, at least I know I would. So can I ask how many of you would like to think of yourselves as individuals? How many of you pride yourself on doing something unique, or being unique, or dressing unique. How many of you attempt to express yourself through something? Anything? I do it, I pride myself on being "one of the few female oud players in Oman". (At least I've been told that). I think that if we all agree that nothing can be done, that no change can be made, we're treading very dangerous waters. If no individual can make a difference, not just in the chocolate/child slavery matter but in any matter what-so-ever, what's the point of individuality? People have accused me of being an idealist, of being 'too optimistic'. I'm not ignorant. I know what's going on. But I think that if there aren't people like me, who hope that change can be made and are willing to attempt to make that change a reality, then how will we ever know it's even possible? You don't know until you try. It's like Schrodinger's Cat: how can we know what will happen, how can we know if change is possible or not, if people don't try? I don't know about you guys, but I feel so fortunate for the opportunities I've been given, and the opportunities I've yet to be given. So many things could be done, so many things should be done. I feel like I have a responsibility to share my good fortune with as many people as I can. I'd like to think it's possible to transcend the role I've been given, sort of Existentialistic of me, eh? What do you guys think, has my sanity run out for the day?
But why do we believe that we individually can't make a difference? Is it because that is the way things have always been, and since "it's worked in the past, it will work now"? I believe that political world leaders or any other popular media figures could instill this belief into people and make that change. If more icons world-wide attempt to convey the idea to the public, I believe that changing peoples minds that "We can make a change" is possible. The reason why we don't believe in this now is because if we look at it from say a national perspective, we think that very few people have similar beliefs, and this is the kind of issue in which majority wins. If individuals can be infused with the idea that the majority belives that they can make a change, this would become the common idea wether the primary idea is true or not, and once it has become belief, it will be come reality. However, as Mr. Frederickson mentioned that these chocolate factories might contain geniuses, what's to say that they may not contain serial killers, burglars or maybe even individuals with dreams of world domination (like Hitler)? I know that looking into the past for answers may not be the best portrayal of truth, but in the past, the percentage of geniuses is persumably lower than the percentage of serial killers (based on reports from different media I have seen anwyays). However, I am just looking at it from a different point of view and I understand that it may not be at all accurate as the media is mostly biased.
After much thought I think I have processed this and have to say.
You know what I think the issue is with "can or can we not make a difference" is. Its because we are so aimed at finding an answer and solution we over complicate a simple equation if you wish. Personally I believe this is the problem for I know that every time I think about this I always find my self in the same place. Stuck faced with either a paradox or lost in the abyss of thought that seems to be consuming me slowly and driving me insane. Every time I mull this over its always the same "conclusion" of uncertainty. And this makes me tired of the world and wants to run and escape to a better place (Trip to a deserted island anyone? One way ticket mind you). Anyways less of the pessimist but what I'm saying is by thinking about everything we lose sight and distract ourselves from what we really could be doing. We restrain ourselves by telling ourselves that the world cannot be changed and so fourth and grow the task to gastronomical sizes that make us believe we can't do it. When really we as the individual can make a difference regardless of scale (I back Frederickson on this one). I mean we have become so definitive about what change means and change isn't the world or something fabulous. Change does not have to be the glitz and glam we see, its an exaggeration in my opinion. I think one makes a difference by doing what they can to the people and things around them. Not by thinking or believing it has to be so and so. I highly doubt change came a long with a hand book or set of guidelines? My point is I feel I no longer need an answer but rather action. If one wishes to make a difference I believe you should strive for it and by doing it, making that impact is what the change is. I mean like Mr. Frederickson is an example with his involvement in the school in Bangladesh. Is he or is he not making change? The power is in our hands, its a matter of harnessing it and actually doing it. I try to say the least in the designs I do at school, doesn't make a difference but I tired and achieved it is what counts. I mean those doing the mural at the Royal Hospital is change, its changing an environment for little kids to be happier in then before. Its a difference, may no be big but its something. Our definition of change and the search for an answer is what blinds us from doing something. We trick ourselves to believe what we see is. For me change is action no matter where or what form it may been in. If I hit a wall I'll try find a way around or through it. Scale, form, medium all that doesn't matter as long as you did it and it does affect someone.
You know what I think the issue is with "can or can we not make a difference" is. Its because we are so aimed at finding an answer and solution we over complicate a simple equation if you wish. Personally I believe this is the problem for I know that every time I think about this I always find my self in the same place. Stuck faced with either a paradox or lost in the abyss of thought that seems to be consuming me slowly and driving me insane. Every time I mull this over its always the same "conclusion" of uncertainty. And this makes me tired of the world and wants to run and escape to a better place (Trip to a deserted island anyone? One way ticket mind you). Anyways less of the pessimist but what I'm saying is by thinking about everything we lose sight and distract ourselves from what we really could be doing. We restrain ourselves by telling ourselves that the world cannot be changed and so fourth and grow the task to gastronomical sizes that make us believe we can't do it. When really we as the individual can make a difference regardless of scale (I back Frederickson on this one). I mean we have become so definitive about what change means and change isn't the world or something fabulous. Change does not have to be the glitz and glam we see, its an exaggeration in my opinion. I think one makes a difference by doing what they can to the people and things around them. Not by thinking or believing it has to be so and so. I highly doubt change came a long with a hand book or set of guidelines? My point is I feel I no longer need an answer but rather action. If one wishes to make a difference I believe you should strive for it and by doing it, making that impact is what the change is. I mean like Mr. Frederickson is an example with his involvement in the school in Bangladesh. Is he or is he not making change? The power is in our hands, its a matter of harnessing it and actually doing it. I try to say the least in the designs I do at school, doesn't make a difference but I tired and achieved it is what counts. I mean those doing the mural at the Royal Hospital is change, its changing an environment for little kids to be happier in then before. Its a difference, may no be big but its something. Our definition of change and the search for an answer is what blinds us from doing something. We trick ourselves to believe what we see is. For me change is action no matter where or what form it may been in. If I hit a wall I'll try find a way around or through it. Scale, form, medium all that doesn't matter as long as you did it and it does affect someone.