New Layout [Again]
I have decided to change my layout to one of simple nature. Had a conversation with a friend last Sunday and I was questioning myself why do people like to complicate matters. Is it in people's nature to over-think & over-question? Being critical is good for it brings out fresh perspectives that would complete the missing piece in the overall picture. However, it gets out of control when people cannot understand the whole picture when it is presented to them and start to assume that there are missing pieces when there's none. They delve deeper and deeper attempting to looking for a missing piece.
They start to pick on the picture, saying it lacks a certain colour. Shades ought to be stronger, the lines are not defined enough. How many times have we come across situations where everything is a blur of grey but we still seek to define only black and white & when we are not able to we get frustrated and put the blame on the situation?
Is it an unwillingness to acknowledge their flawed perspective? Or is it simply a strong need to prove that their viewpoint stands despite the glaring difference? Postmodernists [though these people would never exactly label themselves as one] like Micheal Focault & Lyotard would probably say,"It's all subjective." For if you believe that Hitler is a nice guy then he is a nice guy despite all the atrocities he has commmited. Ponder, does a serial whore killer cum loving father of a mentally retarded daughter contradict? And how would we usually base our judgements? Upon what kind of information we receive firsthand? Take for example, Hitler has been portrayed as a Dictator. Someone responsible for horrifying massacres during World War II? Then take note of this - Hitler appealed to the masses for the promise of economic growth. He was against unemployment and he was a vegetarian. Incidentally he also loved animals and he can paint and write music. Take these points into consideration and would he come across as someone totally different from his assumed "bloodthirsty" status?
A recent film called The Motorcycle Diaries portrays a similar cult figure called Ernesto Che Guevara as a social revolutionary who died somewhere in the jungles of Bolivia and never made a penny for himself. Sounds noble a.k.a. Robin Hood? However if one actually read through his diaries he seems to portray anyone who lives in comfort is necessarily cold-hearted, selfish, and unwelcoming, while anyone poor is—ex officio, as it were —generous, selfless and hospitable. He obviously has an agenda against the wealthy probably due to the living conditions of South America, do we judge him then as someone who rebels for the cause of good or for his own personal agenda?
Something more local perhaps - Huang Na [I detest this subject actually] which I flipped the papers and saw an article today talking about Huang Na's father being an illegal immigrant in 1999 and the mother who overstayed her social visa. And how the little girl was left to fend for herself while the mother was in China. Question - What was the purpose of this article? To bring the mother to heaven then condemn her to hell? Why the merciful status in the first place? To receive public consolation then to be stoned by the same public? Does the media now take people's personal lives as journalism jokes?
Critical Views are needed. Not for being critical about people, not to over-think on issues but to simply ensure there are both sides of views covered in any issue. Tip? Always half-believe what you hear or see and expect more to be uncovered. At the same time, delve not into personal bias but on the situation as a whole.
They start to pick on the picture, saying it lacks a certain colour. Shades ought to be stronger, the lines are not defined enough. How many times have we come across situations where everything is a blur of grey but we still seek to define only black and white & when we are not able to we get frustrated and put the blame on the situation?
Is it an unwillingness to acknowledge their flawed perspective? Or is it simply a strong need to prove that their viewpoint stands despite the glaring difference? Postmodernists [though these people would never exactly label themselves as one] like Micheal Focault & Lyotard would probably say,"It's all subjective." For if you believe that Hitler is a nice guy then he is a nice guy despite all the atrocities he has commmited. Ponder, does a serial whore killer cum loving father of a mentally retarded daughter contradict? And how would we usually base our judgements? Upon what kind of information we receive firsthand? Take for example, Hitler has been portrayed as a Dictator. Someone responsible for horrifying massacres during World War II? Then take note of this - Hitler appealed to the masses for the promise of economic growth. He was against unemployment and he was a vegetarian. Incidentally he also loved animals and he can paint and write music. Take these points into consideration and would he come across as someone totally different from his assumed "bloodthirsty" status?
A recent film called The Motorcycle Diaries portrays a similar cult figure called Ernesto Che Guevara as a social revolutionary who died somewhere in the jungles of Bolivia and never made a penny for himself. Sounds noble a.k.a. Robin Hood? However if one actually read through his diaries he seems to portray anyone who lives in comfort is necessarily cold-hearted, selfish, and unwelcoming, while anyone poor is—ex officio, as it were —generous, selfless and hospitable. He obviously has an agenda against the wealthy probably due to the living conditions of South America, do we judge him then as someone who rebels for the cause of good or for his own personal agenda?
Something more local perhaps - Huang Na [I detest this subject actually] which I flipped the papers and saw an article today talking about Huang Na's father being an illegal immigrant in 1999 and the mother who overstayed her social visa. And how the little girl was left to fend for herself while the mother was in China. Question - What was the purpose of this article? To bring the mother to heaven then condemn her to hell? Why the merciful status in the first place? To receive public consolation then to be stoned by the same public? Does the media now take people's personal lives as journalism jokes?
Critical Views are needed. Not for being critical about people, not to over-think on issues but to simply ensure there are both sides of views covered in any issue. Tip? Always half-believe what you hear or see and expect more to be uncovered. At the same time, delve not into personal bias but on the situation as a whole.
posted by Inarticulate at 5:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home