Epicureanism

Many of life’s difficulties are contained in the seeming contradictory nature of things.  To truly enjoy something, you need to “buy-in” and immerse yourself in the experience.  But this can be dangerous – too much attachment to something with too little perspective can lead to confusion and angst.  Same with relationships.  For human relationships to be worthwhile, you need to genuinely care and be committed to the relationship.  But this can lead to neediness and desperation that will ultimately ruin a relationship and not make it worthwhile.  Same with jobs.  You need to love and care about what you do while simultaneously knowing you will be “fine” if you were to be fired.

A sort of one foot in-the-door/one-foot-out dynamic is often criticized, but it certainly has its advantages.  The Epicurean view, contrary to modern linguistic usage, was not one of pure hedonism.  Whereas many of the Stoics rejected attending the great pleasures of a “feast,” the Epicurean view was that it is fine to attend and enjoy the feast, just don’t need the feast.  Or, more specifically, don’t let your internal happiness be determined by whether you attend the feast or not, but, simultaneously, be willing to enjoy the sensory pleasures of the feast.

How much can a person really enjoy something without feeling that they need it?  Or, in other words, can you truly experience great pleasure and feelings if you’re not all-in (where the thought of losing object x, job x, person x is unimaginable)?  Does the sort of moderation required to not need things result in a life not worth living (a life without enough passion, pain, and triumph)?  

Thoughts on the New App “Color”

A new app called “Color” was recently released.  For those of you who don’t know what Color is, here’s a rough summary of how the app works.  Essentially, any photo taken while using Color is immediately placed onto the public domain.  Any person using Color and within a 150 foot radius of your location can see the photos you are currently taking.  And, obviously, you can see the photos taken by anyone else using Color within a 150 foot radius.  These photos are then put into a “timeline” so you can see what is going on around you in photographic form. 

Ideally, you could open this app at a concert and see hundreds of photos taken by people of themselves and the events around them.  It creates an instant storybook of all events as they take place.

Silicon Valley is going wild over this idea.  Color quickly raised 41 million dollars and is being hailed as the future of social media.   

While I love the concept of Color, I have some concerns about its potential viability logistically and conceptually.

The popularity of Color hinges on it being used by nearly everybody.  If there aren’t numerous people within your radius taking pictures, there’s nothing to do on Color, and there’s no point of going on it.  The question becomes: how does Color get a large percentage of the country on their app in a short period of time? 

Facebook and Twitter had specific advantages for recruiting a social base that Color does not have.  Facebook was able to use colleges to create exclusivity – this allowed them to expand slowly (in relative terms) but expansively.  Furthermore, Facebook didn’t immediately depend on having millions of people using their program – all Facebook needed was the student body at a given college, which, given the social dynamics of campus life, wasn’t hard to get.  On Color, to make it actually worthwhile, millions of people will have to use it to create large scale use (because of the 150 foot radius requirement).  Color can’t expand piecemeal.

Twitter had the distinct advantage of celebrity for building a social base.  They were able to recruit celebrities (who realized Twitter’s potential marketing value) and then large scales of people joined to follow those celebrities.  Without the celebrity aspect of Twitter, there would be no viable way for them to create such a large social network.

Another problem I see with Color is that it is exclusively a smartphone based product.  Whereas Twitter and Facebook are used on computers and smartphones alike (and most often on computers), Color will be used mainly (if not only) on smartphones.  The problems with this are numerous. 

(1) Most social media usage is still ultimately computer based, not smartphone based.  Color relies on people taking photos with their smartphone and looking at other people’s photos in real time.  Even if people later go back and look at the photograph “timelines” from Color on their computers, computer access will not be Color’s primary or essential usage. 

(2) Looking at photos on smartphones is frustrating.  Even with the extremely high resolution of the iPhone 4, it still isn’t the same as looking at photos on your computer.  Have you ever used the Facebook app for looking at photos?  It’s terrible.

  (3) Advertising.  Advertising on smartphone based apps does not bring in nearly the revenue that advertising on social media websites does.  People don’t click, surf the web, and purchase on their smartphones like they do on their computers.

Do I think Color will be successful?  I don’t know – it depends on how the founder and investors of Color answer these problems.  Most importantly, they need to find a way to entice huge amounts of people to use their app virtually overnight.  I’m not sure if marketing alone will be enough.  Even if Color advertised at all large scale social events (such as sporting events, conventions, etc.), I don’t think this would bring the necessary numbers Color needs.  Some might argue that word of mouth will be enough.  I don’t think this is true because people are impatient – if they download Color and nobody else around them is taking pictures and using it, they’ll delete it and/or forget it even exists.

Color may have some adapting to do.  I think the idea is sound, but I don’t know if it has the legs to be successful on its own.  In my mind, the ultimate solution is for Facebook to buy Color (or get around Color’s intellectual property).  Facebook could then use their large social base to make the app worthwhile.  Then, within the Color function of the Facebook app, people could not only look at other people’s photos within their 150 foot radius, but they could look at the Facebook profiles of those people as well.  People could “friend” other people within their radius, learn about them, use the Color “timeline” photos by uploading them onto their profile, and ultimately create this huge, interactive social base. 

Passions as Virtues

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche spent much of his time studying Ancient Greek culture.  In numerous essays, Nietzsche discussed how the Greeks were able to turn seemingly bad human traits, such as cruelty and brutality, into something positive.  He argued that the Greeks took the negative drives of humans and developed them in a social institution based on continual competition. 

                This social institution of constant competition was used as an outlet for feelings of cruelty and brutality.  Consequently, the continual competition and striving to “win” resulted in Greek excellence in numerous fields such as architecture, theatre, sculpture, etc.   

Nietzsche’s philosophy was obsessed with this idea.  He argued that virtues are merely negative passions directed toward a higher goal.  Meaning: seemingly negative passions such as vengeance and fanaticism can be turned into great virtues such as justice and devotion through proper direction and outlets.

By virtue of being human, all of us will deal with a wide range of negative emotions.  The real question is: how do we direct these feelings?  And, even more interestingly, how often is the redirection of negative passions a prerequisite for high achievement (or high virtue)?  

Perspectivism

Many philosophers have looked at the nature of living and argued that life is nothing but suffering and misery.  These sorts of viewpoints tend to assume that “philosophy of life” questions are objectively true for everyone, regardless of their perspective.  But if our various attitudes and ideas change the way we experience the world, then it may be the case that certain viewpoints make life worth affirming and others make life worth denying. 

It seems clear that how the world affects us as individuals is always shaped in some way or another by our attitudes and ideas.  We all go through various mood swings and perspectives about the world over the course of our lives and these shape our experience.   On some days certain things will make us laugh that on other days would make us furious.  The actual event taking place in the world may be exactly the same, while our reaction and experience of the event may be completely different depending on our attitude at the time. 

For instance, after watching a scary movie, a knock on the door may completely frighten us and result in us calling the police.  The scary movie shapes our perspective in such a way that an ordinary event, such as someone knocking on the door, becomes a seemingly frightening and dangerous event.  The experience of the world is different than what it would have been if we had not watched the movie. 

The physical reality of the external world takes place in a definite way and then our internal world shapes the way in which the events of the external world make us feel.  This is something we experience quite often.  We may hear a motivational speaker or have a sudden epiphany about the world; now, tasks that we once found frustrating are transformed into something enjoyable.

The trouble with ideas and attitudes as they pertain to the philosophy of life are numerous.  There is a question of what attitudes and ideas we should bring to the world and also what attitudes and ideas we are willing and able to accept.  We may desire to take a life-affirming attitude toward the world but be unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. 

If enjoying the events of the world were as easy as just looking at it in a certain way, everyone would choose such a viewpoint.  Furthermore, various attitudes and feelings about the world can depart quickly.  A great novel can leave us feeling happy about life and ready for anything – but these feelings generally fade away within a short period of time. 

While our experience of the world is affected by our attitude, the events themselves still play a significant role on our experience, regardless of our attitude.  It does not seem that I can make the experience of being tortured enjoyable by merely assuming the right mindset. 

Even with these worries in mind, the philosophical question of what attitudes and ideas we should aim for in our approach to life is still of great importance. What we are looking for a is a way to make life in general worth affirming, even if that does not result in every experience being enjoyable. 

How do we properly shape our perspectives?  We need to attack the issue from numerous fronts mentally and physically.  I have a lot to say about mental perspective shifting, but I’ll go into that on another day.  Also, a lot of perspective shifting must be highly personalized to the individual. 

But here are some very basic things everyone can do to shift their perspective positively: don’t surround yourself with negative people, eat healthy, sleep, expose yourself to a variety of media and art, workout, and sit in silence for at least 30 minutes a day.

We all basically know to do these things – it’s just a matter of actually doing it.

Various Thoughts on Rap Music as a Genre

                Rap music holds an interesting position in our culture in terms of artistic and popular criticism.  For many intellectuals, rap music is either perplexing, idiotic, or both.  There are a number of reasons for this, many generational, sociological, or psychological.  I’d like to draw out a few of my thoughts on what rap music is and what it means.  It wouldn’t surprise me if many of these ideas have been discussed before, but I must plead ignorance to most writings on rap music criticism.

                Rap music, unlike other music genres, is inextricably tied to the artist’s real identity.  And while pop and rock groups often cultivate artificial identities (see Lady Gaga, Motley Crue), any indication that a rapper has misrepresented who he is decreases the quality of his music.  For instance, if it turned out Jay-Z was not from the Marcy Projects, and instead from a wealthy suburb, virtually all of his music would immediately be rendered terrible.  In juxtaposition, a variation in the biography of virtually every rock or classical musician I listen to would have little or no effect on my enjoyment of their music.  This is not a criticism of rap music, but an example to point out the unique way in which identity informs aesthetic quality in rap music.  In pop music, we understand that Britney Spears or The Backstreet Boys are cultivating a false identity – we accept it as the nature of the genre.  In classical music, the music almost completely stands alone and is rarely informed by indirect information.

                Now, what is the nature of identity as it applies to rap music?  Generally, the better the rapper, the more we know about who they are, how they think, and how they’ve evolved.  The average rap fan knows everything about where Jay-Z’s from, Eminem’s family, Tupac’s social struggles, etc.  Once we as fans understand their identity, we understand their music.  We see where every shift in perspective fits into their big-picture development as a human being.  That’s why it is so difficult for non-rap fans to even understand what is going on in much of rap – without a certain amount of understanding of the history of rap, the socio-cultural dynamics between rap individuals, and an artist’s underlying motivations, numerous songs are virtually unintelligible or without meaning.   

What is the rap identity?  The rap identity is the modern version of the American dream: rags to riches, overcoming adversity, the triumph of the individual over his circumstances.  The experience for the listener is two-fold: (1) they view the artist as an object of admiration (the underdog overachieving) and (2) they view themselves as the artist and experience what it is like to be in their position. 

This is why rap has certain unique features that rarely, if ever, take place in other genres: rap “dis tracks” and constant guest performances on one another’s records.  Rap “dis tracks” are essentially the clash of identities between two rappers.  They are going to use music as a way to express why their identity is more genuine and actualized while their opponent is not legitimately representing who they are.  Guest performances, which rarely make sense in rock music, are commonplace in rap because it gives each artist a chance to present variations on their identity through the overall theme of the song. 

Granted, most of this discussion only applies to rappers who are consistently popular and influential throughout their rap career i.e. good rappers.  One-hit wonders of rap come and go because they haven’t understood these concepts.  Their songs are not an expression of their identity but instead capture an external feeling.  This can work in the short-term, but they will not have long-term success because the listener has not connected with them individually – they have connected with a rhythm and theme that exists outside of the nature of the rapper.   

Communication Barriers

                While reflecting on what I was hoping to accomplish through this blog, I have mixed feelings.  I’m glad that I’ve been able to post relatively consistently, albeit a very short period of time, but I still haven’t captured the direction I was hoping to go in. 

                The posts have mainly explicated theories on how I think different things work in the abstract.  Although this is what I want to write about, it is only part of what I am trying to accomplish.  I’d like this blog to draw out abstract explanations from an extremely personal point of view.  The current distance between my internal thought process and external postulations is something I’d like to destroy.  Granted, there will always be a distance because of the limitations and differences between thought and communication, but I’d certainly like to bring the two much closer together.

                That being said, this is not easy.  Such directness can run the risk of being convoluted or uninteresting.  I want more rawness but not at the expense of clarity.  I recognize that the conceptual point I’m trying to make is easier shown than explained.   In the coming weeks I hope there will be a shift in tone and perspective on the blog.  Whether this will be for the better is yet to be seen.

The Thrill of the Unknown

How quickly we get bored with what we understand.  The unknown and the confusing is what truly attracts us and keeps us engaged.

Think about when you first started a new activity such as a job or your first day of college.  Fast forward three months later.  That same job or class is completely different in terms of how you think about the people, the space, and how you interpret every experience.  The original nervousness, excitement, and enthusiasm are gone – everything has become routine and digested.

                When we first meet somebody that we’re attracted to, much of the excitement is contained in the fact that we don’t know who they are and what they will do.  Anything seems possible.  Once we get to know them, we will never feel the same way because we now understand how they operate.

                This is the difficulty in finding a job or relationship that works.  A creative job, such as being an artist, is always inconsistent and wildly unpredictable.  But the possibility of creating something new and interesting makes it worthwhile.  Routine jobs bring the benefit of predictability and clear cut goals, but it’s hard to stay continually interested in anything where you can predict what will happen in advance.  Same with relationships.  The predictable relationship is satisfying in its dependability but rarely emotionally riveting.

                Why do we like the unknown?  Because, as stated before, anything is possible.  When anything is possible, there is always the hope of a transcendent experience.  Routine behavior rarely brings up such feelings.  When I think back on my most memorable experiences, they were almost always unforeseen.  Plans and routines create massive limitations, but they also create stability.

                The concept of balance seems to be a recurring theme on this blog.  How do you create a life framework that is generally reliable but leaves ample room for unknown, transcendent experiences?