Absurdism

After reading The Stranger by Albert Camus recently, it helped me to cope with some of my emotional angst. I didn't reflect (through writing) on what I read and synthesize it with my own worldview, however, and I think it's about time to do that.

Camus pioneered the idea of absurdism, not to be confused with existentialism. Existentialism suggests we create meaning in our life. Absurdism suggests there is no meaning to life at all. The next logical leap is, if there is no meaning, then why don't we kill ourselves? Camus's argument appeals to me: death makes no more logical sense than life. Therefore, we should live life, though it is absurd. (Absurdity is pithily defined by Camus as: "confrontation between human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.")

What is the purpose of living then? The Stranger seems to suggest a hedonistic, impulsive way of living. Happiness and "the moment" drive the actions of Meursault. He is also insensitive to "tragic" events, such as the death of his mother. So, by this calculation, Camus suggests that hedonism and stoicism are the best responses to an absurd life.

Stoicism has always appealed to me in concept, but I fail to practice it. The idea that you have little control over life suggests that you should only worry about what you can control. However, you cannot deny the deeply visceral. To a degree, stoicism and hedonism seem at odds to me: how can you feel happiness deeply when you deny yourself the depth of other emotions? Of course, humans are capable of feeling happy with something they have and then feeling no remorse when it is lost. But to feel the true depths of happiness with something, you develop a sense of attachment that makes stoicism almost impossible.

Upon reflection, it seems that what Camus suggests is not stoicism at all, but equivalence. When you lose something, you do not need to react stoically, because nothing has changed. Everything is equal to everything else. Whether you have a girlfriend or not...your life has not fundamentally changed. This is perfectly illustrated in two quotes from the book: when Meursault reflects that "really, nothing had changed." This is after his mother died. Most people would be grief stricken by this event, but Meursault feels ambivalent. Indeed, his mother's presence has little effect on his life. Whatever effect it might have had is easily filled with something else. Another good quote comes after Meursault's girlfriend has suggested they should get married. When he responds coolly, she suggests that marriage is important. He responds simply: "No." To get married or not to get married is equivalent.

So, though it seems Camus is suggesting hedonism and stoicism, he in fact is not a proponent for either of these worldviews. Equivalence in absurdity is not the practice of maximizing pleasure or accepting the uncontrollable. Equivalence as a response to absurdity is merely that life will continue on exactly the same regardless of what happens. We wake up, work, eat, go to sleep. Choices and events have no real impact on this absurd cycle.

Does this fit into my worldview? I think I'm too much of an emotional person for this to be the way I act all the time. However, it's something I can look to as an ideal. I believe in the basic tenets of absurdism - this life has no meaning, and our existence is literally absurd and repetitive. I think equivalence covers the same basic problem (with a different approach) as stoicism: if something outside of your control happens, it doesn't affect you. Equivalence also isn't hedonism, because that would suggest that different choices bring different levels of happiness. This makes sense as well: ultimately we have control over our own happiness. Certain choices won't bring us more happiness than others. Find happiness everywhere to combat absurdity.

Meal No. 1: Zours

Today marks the first day of my illustrious meal blog, which mirrors the Roediger House blog. I decided today to make some Zours, which are quite an exquisite meal.

Zours come in several flavors, and I carefully prepared Sour Green Apple, Sour Blue Raspberry, Sour Watermelon, Sour Lemon, and Sour Cherry. They pleased everyone who decided to partake, but I was a little unhappy with how they turned out. Could have used a little more sour when I was making them. The highlight of the meal was, of course, the "Zour Zweat." Shane managed to break out a few beads of sweat:

Intestinal turmoil ensued after ingesting an entire box each, naturally.

This blanket

I’d rather have one less blanket on the bed

Since tonight, a blanket has taken your stead

I have the good pillow to myself again

And I won’t have to get up to turn on the fan

Sometimes it’s nice to just take care of yourself

And other times, it seems the worst level of hell

I’m not sorry that I can’t get over you still

I’ve been trying for months yet it remains uphill

I didn’t realize how much I loved who you are

The most beautiful person I’ve ever met, by far

No other woman I’ve found could ever compare

You didn’t take my breath, you’ve become my air

It wasn’t the fact that I felt so alone

It was the fact that you were no longer on the phone

I know now I fucked up, but I’m only a man

My life has no purpose without you in the plan

So I’m telling you now, from my inner most core

You made my life something it never was before

You are so beautiful, and you gave that to me

The fault was my own that I just couldn’t see

You consume my life now, every moment of each day

And each moment’s the same in this bed where I lay

You still have my full heart, and you will ‘til the end

But I fear that this blanket is my permanent new friend

Needless

If we are not needed

then what are we?

In this vast existence…that which is not needed seems absurd

and in want of need I don’t want to continue

for purpose is a word contrived and unanswered

Except perhaps in companionship

and when you are no longer needed

your only companion is loneliness,

which bitterly consumes both want and need

in a mire of depression.

A search for meaning yields no answer

So the answer begets a question

When we have no need, why go on?

The grim truth is plain

And needless to say, has been troubling my mind.

Charter Schools

In my thinking regarding American education, I always thought of charter schools as only slightly less problematic than private schools. However, while reading Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough on Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children's Zone, I think I've opened my thinking up somewhat.

My initial gripe with charter schools is that, similar to private schools, not everyone can attend them and they increase gaps in education. Public schools can't compete, and not everyone has access. It would be better to eliminate them to even out resources and the playing field.

However, the playing field in America simply isn't even right now. And eliminating private and charter schools would certainly even the playing field, but it might not fix the problem. Right now, black children are too far behind for this to solve the problem by itself.

The Harlem Children's Zone is taking a crack at fixing this problem by changing black culture regarding education. It's a good program - it immerses poor minority children in learning and produces results. But it's limited in the amount of students it can accept, and it isn't very reproducible (at a whopping $76 million operating cost).

But does it have to be reproducible?

If the Harlem Children's Zone works to close the racial and socioeconomic gap in American achievement, ultimately more kids will be getting out of poverty. You can't reach every kid right away, but if the program lasts long enough then eventually all of these poverty stricken families will have a shot at the program. The ones who are getting their shot right now should be lifted out of poverty, creating opportunities for others and creating gradual change.

So...charter schools are a temporary solution. If they close the achievement gap long term, then eventually they can be shut down and all schools can be equal again. But a culture of learning needs to be transmitted through such intense programs so that a level playing field will be played on by equal talent.

Not everyone can be admitted to these nice charter schools now, but hopefully over years and years everyone can be. Change takes time and a lot of effort. With charter schools, we can make charter schools obsolete again.

It might not be totally fair now. But in the long run...it might be.

Why are poor people poor?

The epidemic of poverty in America is a controversial topic, one with no true answer regarding its cause. Of course, am I going to take a stab at it on my blog? Of course.

If poverty in inner city areas is perpetuated by itself (a.k.a. poor people are surrounded by poor people so they don't have reason to believe they should change or that change is the norm), then how do you escape this cycle? The arguments that more government funding is the solution and the argument that no government funding is the solution are commonly thrown around. In my opinion, funding isn't the key issue. The issue is the creation of jobs.

When jobs existed for African American families (that didn't require higher education), a steady flow of income and the mixture of middle and low class families provided a stable environment for kids to grow up in. The employment rate for young African American males fell from 82% in 1965 to 58% in 1984. The employment rate for young white males barely moved from 80% to 78%. So what happened?

First off, it's clear that unemployment for young black males is a huge factor in the poverty cycle. Just to be clear. So how to fix it?

First of all, with more young adults going to college, jobs began to seek more educated employees. Jobs for high school graduates left cities, and jobs for college graduates came in. This created a huge gap.

This gap can still be seen today - it's because jobs are being outsourced! People around the world will do menial labor for cheaper, so the jobs are leaving America. These opportunities are dwindling. How can we fix that?

Bring back our jobs to America. However, the problem is that people won't do these jobs for the same low rates. Why not?

Because the standard of living in America is higher than in other places. Why is the standard of living so high?

Because we have an enormous wealthy elite that are living at levels way above everyone else. Simply put: the range of wealth in America is greater than most other countries. For example: China's poverty rate is 2%. America's is 12% (approx. 2009).

So here's the chain:

Enormous wealth disparity -> Disproportionate standard of living -> Outsourcing of jobs -> Poverty

You figure out what to change.

Education & Economic Ideologies

I just finished reading an excerpt of Grading Education by Richard Rothstein for class. In general, Rothstein is raising questions of school goals and accountability. I began thinking about the idea that schools bear the responsibility of educating children, and we expect them to fix society's problems. Some would argue that other issues, especially moral education, are up to the family (and community). Who is correct?

The argument could be made that these issues are separate. Educating children morally should be left to families, and schools should fix our society by providing academic tools. Right? Problem solved. Not that simple, of course...schools are going to teach children morals one way or the other. Even if it is merely by observation and behavioral conditioning, they are learning morals at school. So the problem cannot be so simply divided. Schools do have a moral responsibility.

I would argue that part of the problem is American economic ideologies that are in opposition to each other. Simply put: public education is a socialist goal, and private responsibility is a capitalist ideology. Are these two ideologies creating the disconnect between expectations of moral education?

I would say so. I've just begun thinking about this issue, so my thoughts are not well formed. But I think it makes sense. A purely capitalist society would oppose public education. We have conflicting ideologies in place: a socialist idea in a (mostly) capitalist society. So where does the responsibility fall? I would say it must come from both places. But that means schools do have a responsibility to educate morally.

This is probably one of the most amorphous, unclear blogposts I've had...maybe ever. All that is to say, if anyone is reading this (maybe you, Ray Jones? Brad?), PLEASE feel free to contradict what I'm saying and weigh in. Just thinking through some stuff.

Maybe my next post will be more concrete. Here's hoping.