January, 2007


23
Jan 07

A Modest Proposal for the Complete Abolition of Art at Chadwick School

Chadwick School is nearly perfect. We have hard-working staff, a beautiful campus, and most importantly, hard-working and dedicated students. I know that all Chadwick students value their education, and it deeply pains me to see when my peers are distracted from their work. I believe that there is one key problem at this school, and it is art. I propose that this distraction is removed and banned from Chadwick School.

Art is a pointless exercise of mass-producing images of items that are far better viewed in person. Perhaps a photo may be of use to one who cannot physically see something in person or who wishes to remember a certain event. Some may argue that photography is an art, but I assure you that the unusual close-ups and blurry images that I have heard called “art” are nothing more than the play of a child who does not know how to properly use a camera. The same goes for the many “abstract” drawings or sculptures that I have seen. If I fell asleep with a pen in my hand and woke to find my mattress covered with random spots, would that be considered “art”? This kind of work is nonsensical and should have been early outgrown. Children call it play, us adults call it a mess.

Granted, not all art is of this random abstract nature, some is realistic, such as a bust or painting of a human. The creation of such things is of course a waste of time, as with the use of a camera one can capture an image immediately. Such things as bowls created with clay are inefficient, as machines could be made to do the repetitive work that humans are not meant to. I wish only to keep the students focused on their work, as I know they value their education above all. Instead of performing the repetitive tasks behind art, students should spend their time working math problems.

I have heard such words as “self-expression” and “emotion” when describing art. This makes very little sense, as I cannot see how the random placement of stains on a piece of paper can possibly express emotion. If one would like to express an emotion, I welcome the writing of a formal essay or letter to one who can help to eliminate this, as all emotions are simply distractions that must be overcome to maintain an efficient work schedule. A peer once said to me that the use of art for “expression” can help some students to stay healthy and deal with their emotions. What a misunderstanding! Said person must have obviously wasted far too much of their time on art and not had a chance to learn of the true order of things. It simply makes no sense that spending time dirtying perfectly good paper will help a person to deal with emotions. Obviously if a person is too distracted by their emotions they are not fit to attend our prestigious school. I recommend the complete extermination of such emotions. We all know that to ignore is to destroy, which is why the communication of such things is only contributing to the problem and is also the reason why we should never ignore our studies. If such “expressiveness” is discouraged early in a child’s education, it can be eliminated and no longer pose a threat to the studies of our bright students.

There is of course the theatre, which is another of these arts. Students spend time memorizing lines and movements to perform them all in order flawlessly in front of spectators. This is inefficient, as with the use of a video camera, the set, words and actions could be shot one by one, with segments containing errors simply re-done or edited with the use of a computer. By this method the students would only need to perform their parts once and not necessarily in the correct order, and the film could be assembled and watched an infinite number of times thereafter.

Most of all, I cannot express enough my fear for the safety of the students around art. If it is indeed true that these students are being expressive and emotional and even communicating new ideas to people with art, the civil order of our school could be at risk. Expression of new ideas yields opinions, which create disagreements and divisions. Divisions create disputes which can erupt into attacks to power, resulting in the upheaval of order. The students will begin to question the authority, and attempt to change their position or the truths enforced by their superiors. It is for this reason that our one true system must be understood by all students.

If all students can understand this system, we can work constantly on math problems. The need for motion would disintegrate as we developed machines to feed us. Language would become obsolete, as all people would communicate with math via computers. Eventually our programs would become so sophisticated that we wouldn’t even need to think and we ourselves would become obsolete, creating a golden age of computerized rule and ultimate efficiency. I see no place for art on the path to this golden age.


22
Jan 07

that time

its that time again. the time when all social activity is cut off. all extracurriculars put on hold. all passions delayed, dreams turned away, creativity denied, and raisins crusted and sugared-over. it’s finals time. goodbye world. see you in a couple weeks.


21
Jan 07

In Which “The New Atheism” by Dawkins is Analysed and the Term “Forced Faith” is Coined

torrent

interest sparked by this article

Especially interesting to me is the second half of the virus of faith.

Dawkins makes some sweeping generalizations and shows a disgusting lack of compassion, but he also has some very valid points.

The root of all evil is not religion. many peaceful people are religious, and many violent people are non-religious. Faith, however, presents more of a dilemma. The nazis were faithful to hitler, and terrorists are faithful to their causes. However, gandhi was faithful to his causes and his people and his ideals. Perhaps then the question is not faith exactly, but blind faith.

Some religious people are faithful because of a continuing critical thought process that considers other belief systems and allows critical questioning of their own beliefs, which leads them to the personal conclusion that their faith is right for them. This is good.

However, some religious people are faithful because they were “raised that way”, because their parents “told them so”, because they live in an isolated society where contact with other belief systems is cut off, or even because they are threatened from an early age with severe punishments in this life or the afterlife. This “forced faith” is unhealthy, and it’s probably from this kind of faith that terrorism and nazism gain support.

The question of the fairness of indoctrinating a child with religious beliefs is a difficult one. Parents have a right, and perhaps even a responsibility to educate their children about their heritage. Some important restrictions, however, must be applied. The enforcement of education by refusing access to other ideas and information is obviously unhealthy to a young mind because it destroys the ability to think critically and results in “forced faith”. The use of hell as a threat, as discussed in the “The Virus of Faith” can be considered psychological abuse, and furthermore the use of heaven as a bribe is questionable as well. A personal belief in heaven and/or hell is not necessarily unhealthy, but attempting to scare a child into adopting a belief system undoubtedly is, especially if the child is told that her very conception and birth was a sin. This is not to say that all churches do this, this is to advocate caution against it. The playing field is already unleveled because religious education facilities are free to criticize science although public educational facilities are prohibited from criticizing religion.

Some may argue that it is important to teach a child religious doctrine in order to teach them morality, and some people may even insist that without a fear of supernatural repercussions, one has no motivation to live a just life. However, the concepts of compassion and morality can be taught outside of religious doctrine, and some scientists, for example the one in the film, believe that morality and the idea of “do unto others as you would want others to do unto you” is a natural “instinct” of humans, developed and passed down guided by Darwinian principles to allow humans to function well in groups.

A religious community, like any other community, can be very enriching and help to spread knowledge, promote discussion, and bring people together to give them a sense of belonging and home. However, imagine the observation made in Supersize Me, that McDonald’s Play Places help associate a warm fuzzy feeling with McDonald’s so that adults will have an urge for a burger when they see the golden arches. Could a religious community hold youth activities for the purpose of subconsciously associating “family” with their community or faith, thus securing the continued patronage of it’s youth and their future generations?

One may argue that the “problem” that I am getting at is extremist religion. However, I would rebut that even moderate religious faith can be damaging on an individual level if it is “forced faith”. If a moderately religious person is faithful because they feel that they have no other options because of peer pressure from their community or family, or even if they are unaware of any other options outside of their faith because of the isolation of their community, then that person’s thoughts or actions may be restricted by their faith. She may not be able to marry outside of her faith, attend school outside of her faith, or support any kind of cause that her religious community shuns. She could become trapped within her religious community and religious belief system until she was (ironically) “saved”. This situation has been compared to homosexuality, in the sense that some people who are personally non-believers are forced by their community to remain “in the closet”.

So if the “problem” is “forced faith”, what is the solution? An early encouragement of critical thinking is essential for children, and, along with a healthy dose of exposure to outside cultures and belief systems will allow a person to develop their own personal belief system as opposed to simply inheriting one from their parents or community. Also, a healthy religious community is one that is compassionate toward religious and non-religious people, even if the non-religious ones are former community members. A religious community must be supportive of its members’ decision to leave, just as a nonreligious community must be supportive of converts away from faith, and converts into faith. Communities must assert that atheism is an option, just as communities must assert that homosexuality is an option. Freedom is a key word here. Freedom of action and freedom of thought. If a person is religious by “voluntary faith”, then they are free. If a person is non-religious by voluntary non-faith, then they are free. Perhaps then the root of all evil is enslavement.


20
Jan 07

welcome… again

server was hacked, had to reinstall everything. remind me to set up a system to backup the database.