Narcissism in Today's Generation

           The American education system focuses heavily on how to prepare students with the academic skills they will need to pass college. However, what schools tend to neglect are the skills their students will need to survive in everyday life situations. In Neil Postman’s The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School, Postman discusses the tactics in our education system that he disagrees with, and suggests what he feels are better alternatives. One topic that is discussed by educators and intellectuals alike is whether school should be a place for strict textbook learning, or a place to adapt street smarts. Postman felt that school should equally be divided between the two, stating “What this means is that at its best, schooling can be about how to make a life, which is quite different from how to make a living.” (Postman, the End of Education).

            Although school is a place for learning skills such as math, science, and English, there becomes an age where children are in a need for learning how to interact with others, and communicate in an environment they may not be completely comfortable with. Without disregarding the importance of individual growth in a school setting, Postman writes, “… the idea of a school is that individuals must learn in a setting in which individual needs are subordinated to group interests… the classroom is intended to tame the ego, to connect the individual with others, to demonstrate the value and necessity of group cohesion.” (Postman, the End of Education). Without this kind of group exposure, people fall accustom to selfish thinking, and therefore a world of priorities that revolve almost solely around themselves. I am not attempting to make a large generalization that all adolescents are selfish individuals, but, according to the Association of Psychological Science, “College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago” (Douthat, The Culture of Narcissism).

          Interestingly enough, Postman’s the End of Education was published around the time that said college students would most likely be first attending primary school. Although this may just be a coincidence, it is important to recognize that Postman practically called for this kind of self-absorbed public to be created in future generations. So the topic in question is how does one prevent this pattern from continuing? The first step is recognizing the cause. Schools now a days are guilty of handing out awards for simply showing up to an event. Therefore, students grow up with a sense of entitlement, and when they are placed into the workplace, they expect to be rewarded and praised for even the simplest of accomplishments.

          There is no denying that "Generation Y" is bringing innovations to the world greater than ever before imagined. However, the more an individual from this generation personally recognizes this fact, and the more that person will expect those around them to praise them for it, the less productive they will become, leaving themselves in an endless cycle of sugar-coated compliments. Constructive criticism is a vital aspect of learning, and, without it, society will cease to advance.

Works Cited:

Douthat, Ross. "The Culture of Narcissism." Ross Douthat The Culture of Narcissism Comments. The New York Times, 02 June 2010. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Knopf, 1995. Print.

What if Darwin ate at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

*Huge spoiler alert: please don’t read this post if you have any interest in reading The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy because I completely give away the ending!!! Otherwise, carry on J

Although we already have a long list of great reads from Lang, I couldn’t help but write this post on a book from a different class. When thinking of philosophy and all of its complexity, one book from the summer reading list freshman year very clearly sticks out in my mind: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. For anyone who hasn’t read the book, Douglas Adams is fairly similar to Gaarden in that he makes the reader question the significance and purpose of their existence (except through aliens, not philosophy) in a fairly complicated way, making it rather difficult to give a proper summary of his book. However, for the purpose of this post, I will be focusing on the part of the story that revolves around Earth.

Near the very beginning of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Earth is destroyed in order to make space for a hyper-space express route, leaving only one human, Arthur Dent, to roam the universe. However, near the very end, Arthur discovers that Earth was created and controlled completely by mice. This concept somewhat reminds me of Darwin’s theory of “natural selection”.

Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who believed in the concept of evolution and “survival of the fittest”. Gaarden points out in his book, Sophie’s World, that Darwin “proposed that all existing vegetable and animal forms were descended from earlier, more primitive forms by way of a biological evolution” (Gaarden 405). Gaarden also states that “Darwin proved that mankind had developed from animals” (Gaarden 197). Therefore, at least according to Gaarden, Darwin felt that the only separating factor between humans and animals was a human’s abilities to evolve faster than most animals.

However, notice my choice in wording. Although, in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Adams claims both mice and dolphins are superior species in intelligence and universal understanding, he does not seem to portray any other animals in such a way. Therefore, it is interesting to consider what Darwin’s beliefs may have been on the matter. Perhaps Darwin, being the scientific, well-educated man that he was, would question what in evolution separates mice and dolphins from other animals in Adams’s opinion. However, it’s also very possible that the concept of talking mice would be too absurd for a man of Darwin’s status.

Either way, it is clear that Douglas Adams agreed with Darwin rather strongly in a sort of “eat or be eaten” outlook towards the universe. In Adams’s book, humans were far behind in regards to the understanding of anything other than their own planet, and were therefore no longer seen as important to the rest of the life forms in the universe. The concept of extra-terrestrial activity would perhaps be too hard for Darwin to comprehend, considering topics such as aliens and space travel were most likely not as common in the early 1800s. However, “in Darwin's time there were a number of observations and finds which were putting traditional beliefs to the test” (Gaarden 405), so he may have in fact appreciated a concept so new and advanced to completely appall the church with, and hopefully use to make further philosophical and scientific discoveries.

Whether Darwin ever imaged such a system of science fiction so far ahead of the 19^th century as that going on in the head of Douglas Adams, their views on “natural selection” were noticeably similar, and the idea of one species completely dominating another in order to survive is prominent throughout the book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and also throughout the teachings and views of naturalist Charles Darwin. 

Works Cited:
Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994. Print.

American Exceptionalism

The United States is known for many things, whether that be a mix of cultures, strong nationalism, or a fight for freedom and justice. All these characteristics were made clear in Bush’s speech in 2001 addressing the horrific tragedy that occurred at the World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. Although it is said the goal of al-Qaeda was to break down our nation, the incident on 9/11 instead was viewed as an opportunity to bring together not only our country, but surrounding nations and allies. The common view in our nation was made clear by George W. Bush, when he stated, “The advance of human freedom… now depends on us… We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail”. However, one begins to wonder, at what price? What key characteristics that make the United States the country that it is was Bush and the rest of our nation willing to give up in order to get “justice” for this “crime against humanity”?

Questions like these are addressed continuously by Noam Chomsky in his post, Looking Back at 9/11 a Decade Later. However, a claim he makes very prominently is an incident that occurred a decade after Bush made his speech: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Not even necessarily criticizing the killing of bin Laden, but instead the way in which he was killed and treated, Chomsky discusses how, “the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself”. One could argue, as Chomsky does, that the killing of bin Laden was done in such an inhumane way that it defied everything that we, as the United States, claim our nation stands for. This concept is known as “American exceptionalism”, in which, when faced with a political crime as large scale as terrorism, the United States begins to pick and choose which “inalienable rights” they would like to follow through with.

However, it is important to recognize that Bush does address the certain situation as an exception to what the U.S typically has to deal with, as the circumstances of the time themselves were anything but normal. Bush states in his speech, “Americans have known surprise attacks—but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day—and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack”. Considering this event as such an unexpected attack, and such a devastating one at that, it’s fair to expect things in our nation to change. Such a change was proven to be a goal, or possibly a last resort, for the U.S when Bush states, “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen… Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists… We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans”. Therefore, despite Chomsky’s fair points, one could argue that this was somewhat of a warning to the world that, for the time being, our government was no longer focused on the rights of mankind, but instead the protection of the United States and its citizens.

Nevertheless, no matter how much warning Bush gave, that doesn’t justify the behavior of the U.S before 9/11. Chomsky addresses America’s fault in which we get ourselves involved in the business of other countries, with the benefit of humanity in mind, but almost always end up harming the country in which we invade, such as during the Vietnam War or the “First 9/11” nearly 30 year beforehand. However, despite the killing of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians by the American weapons and the American soldiers, we do not take a stand against such horrendous terrorism until it is our country that is under attack. It is believed that, as stated by Chomsky, “Those whose mission is to rule the world enjoy a more comforting picture”, meaning that countries who have large scale plans for the future tend to only acknowledge what they feel will lead their country to achieve those plans. An action such as this, though the intentions may be good, can lead to great hostility between countries and detrimental results.

With all of these points considered, I personally agree with Chomsky in saying that our nation was guilty of what he refers to as “American exceptionalism” during the time period of 9/11 and decades to follow. However, it’s also important to consider that, in his speech, Bush’s intentions were to not only persuade our nation, but also begin to warn the world that our priorities as a nation could no longer be steered towards the well-being and justice of even our worst enemies, as 9/11 was the wake-up call we needed to see that our nation was no longer “immune from attack”. Therefore, if the topic in question is whether or not 9/11 could have been avoided, then I would say it is fair to believe that such a tragedy was inevitable for our country. I in no means have the intentions of implying that our country "deserved it", but I do believe that after all the attacks we made on other countries, it was ignorant to expect that we would forever be "immune from attack".