Events and Ideas

     After that epic essay, it's time to get back to what's happening with life. The ReView is going moderately well. By that I mean the stories are going fine (my second one is in the latest edition), and I'm still doing well in all my classes, but it's also taking up a lot of time. College is going well, especially now that I've gotten to know a few people.
     Today I got to meet Charles Pickering. I'm a member of the honor's institute bearing his name at JC. He came to speak with us about a book he wrote, called A Price Too High, which we were required to read. It was about when he was a judge and had been nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. During that time, he suffered a lot of political slander from Democrats because they knew he was personally opposed to abortion and afraid he might make a ruling against it. It's a fascinating book, if you ever decide to read it. At least I liked it. Apparently there are some students who found the book extremely boring. I suppose that's one of the reasons I'm weird. I love reading about subjects dealing with morality, controversy, or some disputed Christian doctrine. I just find the concept of right and wrong extremely interesting, especially when it comes to how we as humans are supposed to act towards each other.
     Consequently, those are the things I enjoy writing about the most. How am I going to do that as a journalist, you ask? I'll find a way. I'll write for the opinions section, or write a novel on the side. Why a novel? I have a short attention span, so trying to write an entire book about these concepts directly might bore me, or more importantly, bore my readers. I decided it would make more sense and be more interesting if the concepts could be seen in action, preferably in an exciting fiction story. Plus, I also love far-out genres like science-fiction and fantasy, so it's a win-win.
     I've got quite a few story ideas, which I may talk about one of these days. At the moment, though, I've got homework to do. Bye.

My Musings

     Sorry about the wait between this and last post, but I hope the content makes it worth it. This originally started out as an essay for my English class, but I ended up deciding it was worth a blog post. This post is dedicated to Lauren Taggart, sort of my mental sparring partner for a week at USM. We talked about the things that inspired me to write this in the first place. Now, without further ado, I present A Comparison of Idealistic and Darwinian Societies.

    

            Either idealistic or Darwinian principles can be used to govern society, and both claim to benefit the human race if applied.  However, they differ widely when it comes to human interactions, moral beliefs, and core values.

            The defining principles of both societies are stark in contrast.  Darwin’s principle of evolution, “survival of the fittest”, is the foundation for a Darwinian society.  This principle comes from Darwin’s belief that nature improved itself by allowing animal species to better themselves by competing for supremacy. This belief came from his observations of weak species being preyed upon and eliminated by stronger ones in a continual struggle for survival and dominance. An idealistic society, however, is driven by a search for truth, and the idea that truth will improve humanity more than anything else. Comparing these two societies will give further insight into understanding them.

            Idealistic society promotes the idea that all humanity deserves to live and pursue happiness. This idea is supported by the Bible, demonstrated by the instruction of Jesus to care for the poor, widows, and orphans. Idealism believes in the concept of morality. Although some cultures disagree on specific points, it is generally acknowledged that some things are right and some things are wrong. The acts of betraying your country, stealing others’ property, and killing without cause are some of the many things that are almost universally agreed to be wrong.

            One example of a Darwinian society was Hitler’s Germany.  Hitler believed that genetics determined a human being’s worth.  As a result, he doomed what he believed to be inferior humans to extermination, bringing about the worst genocide in history.  His ultimate goal was to create a genetically superior race he called the Aryans.  This illustrates the Darwinian principle well.  Hitler eliminated what he deemed were “unfit” humans for the benefit of “the fittest.”

            If this principle were to be applied to an idealistic society, many of the same sorts of changes would occur.  First, laws prohibiting immoral behavior would be thrown out the window.  A Darwinian society does not believe in right and wrong.  In fact, it believes morality is counter-productive to the successful improvement of humanity.  The Constitution of the United States would be considered especially dangerous.  It is filled with ideals like, “all men are created equal,” which Darwinists consider false.  Secondly, because “the fittest” are the ones that are valued most in such a society, those not in this category would be considered “the unfit”.  Individuals with mental or physical illnesses, those highly likely to develop disease, and people who use resources without contributing to society, would be sterilized or exterminated.  This, according to Darwinian thinking, would streamline the gene pool, free our resources, and improve humanity’s chance for continued dominance.

            After examining both societies’ beliefs and effects on human interaction, it is time to look at what really drives these two models, and what they value the most.  Idealism revolves around morality.  There is the underlying idea that truth is more important than personal happiness.  Jesus summed up morality in a single sentence when He said, “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.”  All moral behaviors follow this rule.  In essence, idealism values others’ benefit the most.

            Darwinism is much different.  No one can deny that the Darwinian principle is effective at improvement, but the reason it is so effective is because it relies on humanity’s selfish nature to operate.  Darwin’s principle can only work if everyone involved is looking out for themselves.  Even cooperation is only a means for personal gain or survival.  The individuals within a business cooperate for the purpose of making a profit.  If a worker believes they are not being sufficiently benefited, they will leave the company.  In other words, Darwinism values self the most.  

            The differences between a Darwinistic and an Idealistic society are like night and day.  Idealism promotes mutually beneficial human interactions, strong moral beliefs, and the worth of the human soul. Darwinism brings self-serving interactions, nonexistent moral beliefs, and human survival.  The comparison of these two societal models gives the needed information to identify which model a society follows, Darwinian or Idealistic.  In the end, a society must ask itself whether it wants to merely survive or truly matter.

So that's my essay. Kinda long, I suppose, but I could have gone longer. It's something I've been thinking about for a while. Hope you enjoyed it, leave feedback if you wish.

The College Experience

     I don't think I mentioned this in my last post, but I was homeschooled from kindergarten through highschool. Jones has been my first real "public school" experience. Fortunately, the transition hasn't been as bad as I thought it might be. It's mostly been just getting used to little things, like the cafeteria, class periods, and entering a row to the right of the desk you wish to occupy. When my older sister first went to college, she said it took her a while to realize that the classroom numbers that started with a one, like 117 or 123, met on the first floor, while classes that started with a two met on the second floor. One of my classmates made fun of a sign in one of the buildings that explained this concept, saying, "I feel so secure in my academic future now." Well, those signs are for people like me.
     My first test was in my psychology class, and it was done by scantron. That was different. My teacher didn't explain how we were supposed to do it, so I had to figure it out myself, but it turned out fine.
     One of the biggest surprises came when I realized that hardly any of the students cared about what they were doing. I'd heard that would be the case, but listening to all the people around me in class showed me exactly how true that was.
     Anyway, I had my interview at The ReView, and the editor told me that instead of a regular job interview, he was going to give me an assignment and see how I did. He told me to go interview two fourth grade elementary teachers who had produced the highest scoring math class in the area from an otherwise average school. I interviewed the teachers, wrote the article, and sent it in. The editor said it would be published on the front page of the September 9th edition (it's a weekly paper). I guess that means he liked it, so I was pretty excited about that. The only thing is that I already have a lot to do right now, and doing everything for that article took a good amount of time, which is something I seem to be running low on these days. I'm going to give it a little longer at least, but I may decide to quit if it gets too demanding. Of course I don't want to, I like the work, but I'm afraid it might start affecting my grades. We'll see how it goes. As always, I'll keep you posted.