(no subject)
I posted this article, "What Are You Going To Do With That?" to my mom's facebook wall.
One of the best quotes from the article is, "Moral imagination is hard, and it's hard in a completely different way than the hard things you're used to doing. And not only that, it's not enough. If you're going to invent your own life, if you're going to be truly autonomous, you also need courage: moral courage. The courage to act on your values in the face of what everyone's going to say and do to try to make you change your mind."
My mom's facebook reply to me was, "Unfortunately most of the people have no way but choose to change their mind and go with the flow in order to survive in this society. The alternative is, if we learn how to love whatever the tasks fall upon us, the life might not be dull and might become colorful!"
This completely misses and nails the main point of the article. (I will explain.)
Mainly, the article references the meaning of academia and higher education. It tells us that we should not be afraid to pursue our interests despite what the rest of society expects of us. It also states that success and the essence of our identity is not defined by any materialistic matter such as grades or a prestigious job title.
This is all nice and encouraging, but what my mom said was also true. There are times that call for conformity. Life isn't so simple and favorable that this is all easy to obtain. My mom's comment misses the point that the article is not arguing the validity of a person's choice, it is simply encouraging students to define themselves greater than what is already perceived. However, the article neglects to mention exactly how we define who we are.
Because even that I am being truthful and saying that I am "an artist." It still is a face-value matter. Being an artist is a label. Even if someone truly and honestly wanted to be a doctor-and eventually became one-it is not what defines them. This is where the article stops.
What truly defines someone is their action. My mom states that some people who have no choice but to go with the flow can make the best out of their situation and "become colorful!" That is character. Who you are is not defined by any superficial status-even if you love and breathe everything the status has to show. It is defined by how you treat yourself, how you treat the people around you, and how you act towards adverse situations.
"Moral imagination" is a condition derived from our actions. It is not a condition that creates a path. We don't need to desire traveling to Africa for AIDS awareness to be morally imaginative. To have moral imagination does not mean we have to change the world. Our day to day actions that are moved by our principles already show the depth of our moral courage. It is "the courage to act on your values" in any situation, regardless of how others will support or discourage you.
Overall, this is not a debate about whether it is good or bad to conform or be autonomous. It is about recognizing that who we are is based on something much deeper than any concept and perception.
One of the best quotes from the article is, "Moral imagination is hard, and it's hard in a completely different way than the hard things you're used to doing. And not only that, it's not enough. If you're going to invent your own life, if you're going to be truly autonomous, you also need courage: moral courage. The courage to act on your values in the face of what everyone's going to say and do to try to make you change your mind."
My mom's facebook reply to me was, "Unfortunately most of the people have no way but choose to change their mind and go with the flow in order to survive in this society. The alternative is, if we learn how to love whatever the tasks fall upon us, the life might not be dull and might become colorful!"
This completely misses and nails the main point of the article. (I will explain.)
Mainly, the article references the meaning of academia and higher education. It tells us that we should not be afraid to pursue our interests despite what the rest of society expects of us. It also states that success and the essence of our identity is not defined by any materialistic matter such as grades or a prestigious job title.
This is all nice and encouraging, but what my mom said was also true. There are times that call for conformity. Life isn't so simple and favorable that this is all easy to obtain. My mom's comment misses the point that the article is not arguing the validity of a person's choice, it is simply encouraging students to define themselves greater than what is already perceived. However, the article neglects to mention exactly how we define who we are.
Because even that I am being truthful and saying that I am "an artist." It still is a face-value matter. Being an artist is a label. Even if someone truly and honestly wanted to be a doctor-and eventually became one-it is not what defines them. This is where the article stops.
What truly defines someone is their action. My mom states that some people who have no choice but to go with the flow can make the best out of their situation and "become colorful!" That is character. Who you are is not defined by any superficial status-even if you love and breathe everything the status has to show. It is defined by how you treat yourself, how you treat the people around you, and how you act towards adverse situations.
"Moral imagination" is a condition derived from our actions. It is not a condition that creates a path. We don't need to desire traveling to Africa for AIDS awareness to be morally imaginative. To have moral imagination does not mean we have to change the world. Our day to day actions that are moved by our principles already show the depth of our moral courage. It is "the courage to act on your values" in any situation, regardless of how others will support or discourage you.
Overall, this is not a debate about whether it is good or bad to conform or be autonomous. It is about recognizing that who we are is based on something much deeper than any concept and perception.