The Power of Failure

Title: The Power of Failure
Author: William D. Cohan
Publication: New York Times
Date: November 26^th, 2010
Category: Outside of Class

sureboy.blogspot.com

            This article from the New York Times describes the economic mistakes that Wall Street has faced continuously over the past years. It mentions how we have this image of Wall Street being so great, therefore praising it through writing about it in books, filming it in movies, and overpaying the people that work there. This excessive praise towards Wall Street has gotten people to wonder why we are still viewing Wall Street with this image even though they have made so many mistakes in the past. Some people say it is in our nature to fail. We’re not perfect, and so we are bound to make mistakes and fail. Nevertheless, it’s what we do with these failures that matter. Nowadays, we have the need to be perfect ever since we are born. I find this to be true in my life. I feel the need to be perfect, because this will allow me to be viewed as an accomplished individual. Because of this need, it’s hard to accept my failures, and deal with it and learn from it. Great leaders of the world state the importance of making failures, and that failures can be the thing that creates an epiphany in one’s life. There is no need for us to be perfect, it is simply a want, an image or reputation we want to have; however, there is a need for us to make failures although we may not want it.

            While reading this article, I began to think about what it meant to be perfect. The idea of being “perfect” is different for everyone is it not? If people are striving to be “perfect” while having different ideas of what being “perfect” is, then how can one know that people will view them as being “perfect”? The same applies to what is to be considered as “failures”. What are failures? Do failures mean different things to different people? If so, is it possible that a person considers something to be a failure while another person does not? If this is true, then why are we so afraid of people judging us from our failures when there is a great possibility that people may not even consider our failures to be failures at all? Who decides what should be considered as “perfect” or “failures”? Who has this authority? Do all people agree with this authority? If so, does this figure have the power to control what should be accepted by the mass (common knowledge)?

Veil of Perception

Title: Veil of Perception
Date: October 27^th, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

            The concept of the Veil of Perception states that there is a barrier between what we see, and what is really there, this barrier being the veil. There are different ideas that aroused from this concept of the veil of perception such as naïve realism, direct realism, indirect realism and idealism. Although these ideas were formed by intelligent people from previous eras, significant knowledge issues arise for each concept.

scientificamerican.com

            Naïve realism is also known as common sense realism. It basically states that what we see or perceive is real. This is what most people tend to believe because it helps us live our life (this thus being a pragmatic truth because we believe it because we know that it will benefit us by doing so). Some problems that arise from this idea is, what is people are colorblind? Does that mean that the color they perceive (black and white) is reality? Does that mean that the world is solely black and white? But if this is true, then is the world in color false? What about the presence of temperature? We can’t necessarily see temperature; does this mean that temperature does not exist? Then what is the feeling of warming up? Or feeling cold? Naïve realism does not take account the things we cannot see. However, if we can’t see it, then how do we know it is actually there?

            Direct realism’s founder was a man named Thomas Reid. He stated that there is a direct relationship between what we perceive and the real world. If we constantly see something as being the way it is, direct realism says it is okay for us to conclude that the thing is actually the way we see it. This falls into the category of pragmatic truth. Because it will benefit us in living if we trust our perceptions, we believe that the perceptions are real. Some knowledge issues that are found with this idea is this: what if there is no outside world? If there is no reality, and reality is only within the mind, then how valid is this concept? Again, what if we are colorblind? If we were colorblind, then we would always perceive the world to be black and white, does that mean that the world is black and white after all?

            Indirect realism was thought of by a man named John Locke. He stated that we cannot really know how something really is; we can only know how we perceive it to be. We can only understand the representation of the object, not the real object itself. The question with this idea is how do we know what the representation looks like? Is there a specific way it should appear? For example, if we look at books, they are all supposed to have a cover, and pages with writing or drawing on these pages. We know this as a fact. However, how do we know that all books should be like this? Is this because we always see it like this, and so we believe it? Is it considered as common sense and so accepted by the society? If this is true, then it leads back to the idea of naïve realism.

            Idealism originated from a person called George Berkeley. He claimed that there is nothing behind the veil. He said everything is an idea, and solely an idea. He claimed that there was no material world, and that reality is within the mind. He quoted, “To exist is to be perceived”. If what he said was true, then this would also be true: if we stopped looking at something, then it would cease to exist. What about this: If a tree falls but no one hears it, did it really fall?

            All of these ideas originated from the idea of the veil of perception questions reality’s identity. Is reality what we perceive? Is it solely in the mind? Does it even matter what it is? If we are able to live knowing reality is something when it really isn’t, does this affect us? And if so, how does it affect us?

Modern Dance

Title: Modern Dance
Date: December 1^st, 2010
Category: Outside of Class

dancersalary.com

            Since the annual Dance Competition was coming up, I had been practicing with my partner Sol. Our concept of the dance we were to perform is to create a combination mixing both ballets inspired from modern dance and hip hop. To get my inspiration, I searched on YouTube for videos of modern dance. Upon watching the videos, I began to think of what the term modern dance really meant. The term “modern” meant that it was new and fitting with the world today. However, when I see most of the dances in our society, I usually see varied forms of hip-hop rather than modern dance. How is this type of dance, then modern in the sense that it corresponds to our lifestyle in our society? It could be that the term “modern” signified that this type of dancing was created during our era, near the 21^st century. If this was the case, then how do we know whether this type of dance evolved during our era? Could it be that people from the previous eras had danced this form of dance, but had never shown it? Who decides what is modern and what is considered “old” or “vintage”? Who has this authority? Do all people agree with this authority figure or are we forced into doing so? Would it make a difference if we knew who decided what was modern? Would the dance then be called “modern dance”?