Teacup XXXVIII

[Noble Elf Lord]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Aaand we've reached the point where I really think I should go to sleep. Eärniel and philosophy don't mix well. G'night all.

They mix well enough. Sweet frog-dreams!

EDIT: Yay, I'm a perfect example! ... ..... ..............

[Mari]

*is paying no attention to Hector*

Earn, well yeah, that is pretty much where Galadriel is going with her little speech. Isn't it a scary idea that you and you alone could change the world? And even worse: the people? We would no longer be unique, while uniqueness is that which pushes us onwards. I think technique and probably even society as a whole would come to a standstill.

[Aikanáro]

I tend to sympathise with the position that anyone who really wants power probably isn't suited to have it.

An election where the most modest, self-effacing candidate won would be quite a sight. 'No, vote for the other guy, really!'

I do have a soft spot for reluctant heroes.

[Earniel]

I was thinking more of Gandalf as he told Frodo not to tempt him because he could take the Ring out of desire for strength to do good, and also of Samwise, dreaming of turning Mordor into a garden with flowers and trees. Galadriel's temptation always seemed more abstract to me.

That said, human uniqueness is overrated if you ask me. We are frightfully similar, even in our differences. Every snowflake is unique too but no one would really care if they're not.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

That said, human uniqueness is overrated if you ask me. We are frightfully similar, even in our differences. Every snowflake is unique too but no one would really care if they're not.

I WOULD CARE. How else could I have my collection of UTTERLY UNIQUE snowflakes?!!?!?!? You assume too much, Earniel! >.< Never underestimate the collector's intense desire for unique snowflakes.

[Mari]

Nah, I don't buy that. I think that experiences in combination with your reaction on those experiences (Which are often largely shaped on previous experiences and character/disposition) largely shape you, so it might be that people are similar, but they will never be the same since no one will share an exact same history.

[Jonathan]

You don't buy that, however isn't your view very compatible with what Eärniel just said, about snowflakes and all?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I WOULD CARE. How else could I have my collection of UTTERLY UNIQUE snowflakes?!!?!?!? You assume too much, Earniel! >.< Never underestimate the collector's intense desire for unique snowflakes.

Aha, well, I see. In that case, can I interest you in buying this very unique snowflake from me? It just fell this evening, and is entirely unique. One of a kind! And it can be yours for just one million euros. A bargain for something this unique! Will you be paying cash or by card?

Originally Posted by Mari

Nah, I don't buy that. I think that experiences in combination with your reaction on those experiences (Which are often largely shaped on previous experiences and character/disposition) largely shape you, so it might be that people are similar, but they will never be the same since no one will share an exact same history.

Oh, I didn't say people aren't unique. Even twins with identical genetic make-up and childhood, can still have a different personality each. I just find said uniqueness overrated. And I think you may agree that there are more things that makes us humans similar than those that makes us unique from one another. Uniqueness is not a characteristic that I personally would rate the highest quality in humanity.

[Mari]

Oh, that way. I see, I misunderstood your meaning
On a tangent, I think that most people 'fear' their uniqueness in some way, trying to find commonalities with a group wherever they go, often denying the parts that are different from everyone else, or labelling those as unwanted, weird, freaky, etc. People like patterns and things that are recognizable, i.e. similar. It's sometimes painful and sad to see people try to fit in what they perceive as the norm.
Uniqueness may not define humanity per se, but I do believe it is an important, underrated part of us as a person and perhaps also as a race.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Even twins with identical genetic make-up and childhood, can still have a different personality each.

Tell me about it. My twin and I have a good deal of common ground, but there are a hell of a lot of differences between us, as well, and mostly great big ones.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Mari

Oh, that way. I see, I misunderstood your meaning
On a tangent, I think that most people 'fear' their uniqueness in some way, trying to find commonalities with a group wherever they go, often denying the parts that are different from everyone else, or labelling those as unwanted, weird, freaky, etc. People like patterns and things that are recognizable, i.e. similar. It's sometimes painful and sad to see people try to fit in what they perceive as the norm.
Uniqueness may not define humanity per se, but I do believe it is an important, underrated part of us as a person and perhaps also as a race.

I believe that, while uniqueness historically probably used to be a much less defining trait, it has exploded into something of a benchmark.
In the western world, everyone is an individual and everyone has his or her own style. More and more things in our everyday life gets tailored and customised just for us. We indulge in fashion and choose a new clothing style for every new occasion, we zap frantically in front of the tv to tune in the very programmes we want to watch, we choose our own brands of cereal and, perhaps most importantly, we choose our own education, our own jobs, our own future. Compare this to the past, where the son of a shoemaker in nine cases out of ten, followed in his father's footsteps.
In the field of psychiatry, there is a hypothesis that all this freedom and the abundance of options, is an important stress factor that accounts for a significant part of the mental ill-health in today's society. Depression, angst and whatnot.


Even your wording, Mari, that "most people 'fear' their uniqueness" serves as a pointer that being special is considered the norm. I would think perspectives are different in agricultural societies for instance. And while Japan is a highly industrialised country, isn't uniqueness considered a most scary thing over there, among the majority of the population? Or so I've heard.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I believe that, while uniqueness historically probably used to be a much less defining trait, it has exploded into something of a benchmark.
In the western world, everyone is an individual and everyone has his or her own style. More and more things in our everyday life gets tailored and customised just for us. We indulge in fashion and choose a new clothing style for every new occasion, we zap frantically in front of the tv to tune in the very programmes we want to watch, we choose our own brands of cereal and, perhaps most importantly, we choose our own education, our own jobs, our own future. Compare this to the past, where the son of a shoemaker in nine cases out of ten, followed in his father's footsteps.
In the field of psychiatry, there is a hypothesis that all this freedom and the abundance of options, is an important stress factor that accounts for a significant part of the mental ill-health in today's society. Depression, angst and whatnot.


Even your wording, Mari, that "most people 'fear' their uniqueness" serves as a pointer that being special is considered the norm. I would think perspectives are different in agricultural societies for instance. And while Japan is a highly industrialised country, isn't uniqueness considered a most scary thing over there, among the majority of the population? Or so I've heard.

I would think that this explosion in individualism can be traced, ultimately, to Enlightenment philosophy, which shifted radically from looking at the object to looking at the subject. More immediately, it is doubtless influenced by the rise of existentialism.

[Mari]

I don't quite follow your argument, sorry. Are you saying that there is a bigger emphasis on being unique nowadays, which has become a norm, but people are afraid of that norm?
I was arguing the other way around I think. Though I agree that there is a bigger emphasis on there being differences in the first place.

EDIT: crossposted with Gwai. I responded to Jon.

[Jonathan]

A bigger emphasis on being unique nowadays, yes. I'm not saying people are generally afraid of it though. Although, as you said earlier, it's obvious that many persons are seeking groups to join and similar. But even a certain constellation of group belongings can be considered a part of one's unique character I suppose.

Edit: Gwai makes some interesting remarks

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

... which shifted radically from looking at the object to looking at the subject.

I don't understand what this means. Could you please explain?
I'm sure I learned about Existentialism in philosophy class, but I skipped most of those classes in favour of History (Had too many courses, so some of them were at the same time and I had to choose which class to attend. I love history, so guess which one I attended most )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Mari

I don't understand what this means. Could you please explain?

Sure.
Basically, the subject is the Self, and the object is the Other, or Not-Self. For me, the subject is me, and my desk, my computer, and friends are objects. The idea is rooted in grammar, with the subject being the one performing the action in sentence, and the object the receiving the object in the sentence.

Classical philosophy had tended to treat of the not-self. Even when it did treat of matters pertaining to the self, it tended to do so, not as "self" but as "human being," so that we are seen as parts of a whole (namely, the whole human race) which is primarily outside ourselves.

Starting with Descartes, a fundamental shift begins to occur in modern philosophy. It begins to look inward, more than outward, and to try to understand "me." When it treated external things, the not-self, it tended to treat them, not as they are, but as they are perceived, so that they are considered insofar as they are extension or parts of the self.

Does that make sense?

[Tessar]

You smart people make my head hurt. >.> I pretty much gave this whole page a general stamp of: TLDR. I kid... I skimmed it .

So, I'm seriously considering switching majors BUT continuing with my intention to have a performance career.

I might switch to a business degree, do my voice stuff on the side, and see if I can't relocate myself to NY or somewhere that I could do oratorio work and whatnot while still having a stable job. Then, when I have better connections and a better technique, I could (hopefully) make the jump from business into full time performance.

My parents' argument is going to be, "But you probably wont enjoy the business classes, or being in business!" My reply is that frankly I DON'T enjoy my music classes anyways. I HATE theory, I HATE conducting class, and I'm only mildly interested in music history... and then I would go into teaching to pay off my loans and be working insane hours (they said probably 9 hour days and then taking home at least three hours of work every night for the first year or two) for pretty middle-of-the-line pay.

But put me on a stage and I'm happy as a duck in water. I talked to someone from a prestigious school about what they look for in graduate vocal performance students, and she said they don't give a crap what your degree is in... it matters how you sing, how you act, and how good looking you are.

So since the teaching is my 'safety net' anyways... why not get a -real- safety net that gives me a much wider opportunity to actually get a job to support myself and my career?


It's just a thought for now. I'm going to start out by declaring a business minor, and see how I feel about the classes.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's a possibility; Ian Bostridge, as you doubtless know, was a postdoctoral fellow at Oxford in history before he became a famed singer.

I have to say, though, I'm a bit wary about that idea. Wouldn't you have the best shot at a musical career by concentrating all of your energies in the field? Even if some of the classes don't have an obvious effect, developing a well-rounded understanding of the workings of music can't help but improve your musicality, it seems.

Further, the more music you study, the more "connections" in the world of music you will be able to make, I would imagine, which can only help your career aspirations.

Of course, the decision is yours; just a few thoughts for you to kick around.

[Noble Elf Lord]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Sure.
Basically, the subject is the Self, and the object is...

When did this TCC get this heavy? Otherwise I'd be glad, but mornings are not my best time. My brain has awakened at about 12:00. Before that, I'm pretty much a sleepwalker - and after that, just somewhat. Also, this is heavy to do in English, no matter how good you are (and I don't mean to praise myself here), if it's not one's native language.
...Perhaps people want to be unique as groups?

And Tess, you can be so funny when you want, that you just have to be smart, buddy.

[Jonathan]

Tessar, it's an idea alright.
Although, as Gwai suggested, it's probably favourable to focus entirely on the musical field, it's still always smart to be pragmatic and it sounds like your business venture would be just that.

Your parents' argument-to-come doesn't really matter, because only you can best predict what you'll think of business classes