What is Good?

When a person describes something, the adjective they use means the same thing whenever that adjective is used. A blue car has something in common a blue shirt. They both are blue. A hairy dog has something in common with a hairy man. Both describe the skin texture of the object. Thus making a statement about the object.

However, when you use the word good, what are you really saying? When I say " Vanilla ice cream is good," I am not talking about the vanilla ice cream at all, only my feelings toward the ice cream. Unlike the other adjectives, good does not describe the object. A good game, a good burger, a good dog, a good person. What do they have in common?

So what exactly does it mean to be good? What is good? Aristotle said that something is good when it successfully hits the target for which it was intended. A good basketball shot is one the makes it in the hoop for which it is intended. A good car runs the way it was intended. When this idea is used for people however, it falls a little short. What is the intended target for a person? What makes a good person? How do we know when a person has missed that target? How can we tell the difference between a person who hits the bullseye and a person who doesn't? I ask many questions for a reason, I want you to answer them. What is your basis for being a good person and having a good life? Are you hitting that bullseye?

Democracy Killed Respect

In my last post, I talked on the topic of how people have the need to lift others or look to people who are more "superior" to them for guidance. Now I would like to look at it from the other angle, how people no longer respect the people above them. The American Revolution did so much more than produce a new country, but also a new society. The former hierarchy system was thrown away and now every one was created equal. Monarchy was replaced by democracy.

That background information brings me to the point of this post. If all men are created equal, why does it matter if what prefix is before your name? Why does it matter if the the prefix Dr. or the word President is placed before a name, if all men are created equal why are they so different?

I was having a talk with a professor of mine, lets call him Dr. John Doe for purposes of this post. He was telling me how he has slowly watched the respect of his doctorate slide downhill. He used to be respected and everyone called him Dr. Doe. As time passed, soon emails lost there appropriate heading in regards to his name.Emails became Mr. Doe, just Doe, or even just plain John, totally disregarding his accomplishment of receiving a doctorate.

A better example of this can be seen in the history of presidency of the United States. When the presidency began in the 1789, it was a much revered position. Throughout history the president remained a much respected person. As for the current situation, it does not talk long to notice that news channels love tearing apart and disrespecting the president. Take JFK for instance, many of the news corporations at that time knew of his looseness with women, but it was never spoken about because it would lower the image of the president. Now, anything the president does is blasted across the headlines.

This post was not intended to say that it should not matter who you are, all men are equal and everyone gets to have a voice. Rather my intention was to show that possibly American society has gone too far. Yes all men are equal, but the accomplishments of humans needs to recognized. I do not have a doctorate, but my professor does. He has reached a goal that I have not and I should show respect for that. Certain accomplishments need to be respected and those men and women need to be treated will respect when they are addressed.

Icons of Society

Humans always have a tendency to exalt certain members of society. As a whole people lift up and almost worship others. Celebrities are a perfect example of this. These certain people are looked at in a different light and seen as more than just us normal people.

Another prime examples of this is seen in the founding fathers of America. They more than anyone else is society have been exalted. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others who framed the country are closed to worshiped in America. They seemed all as men who have been glorified to deity.

When we look at the true lives of celebrities, they are just like us. I remember one day flipping through a tabloid in a dentist office when I cam across a section that was title "The Celebrities Are Just Like Us!" This section has pictures of celebrities who do everyday things like normal people- shopping, picking up dry cleaning, taking their car to the mechanic. Also going back to the example of the founding fathers, they were very much human. Almost all of them had lives that have been kept secret from the textbooks. Slave possession, marrying for money, and adultery- just to name a few- always are failed to be mentioned when a description of the founding fathers are told.

Celebrities and founding father are only two examples, there are many more.Why does society do this? These people are obviously just the same as everyone else, so why are they lifted up? What is it inside of people that compels people to create icons out of other people? Could it possibly be because humans as a whole do not feel adequate enough so the have to look to other who have been exalted for guidance and inspiration. People do not think they are good enough so they choose certain people to idolize so they can get through life. They have found perfection in these people so they can deal with there imperfections. Please tell me what you think, give me your opinions.

Modern-Day Coverture

The world we live in is always completely changing. When we look back at the 1700s, we see a completely different world. One area of life that has changed is in the area of women's rights.

The women's life in colonial and early America is called coverture. Coverture gave all the rights of women in the hands of men. When a women was born she had no rights, was not allowed to hold property, and of course was not allowed to vote. Her father would make all the decisions in her life. She was trained to become a housewife. When she was married off, all her rights were transfered to her husband, and still once again she had no rights. This system was put into place to protect women from "the hardships of life." Women were viewed as not capable of dealing with responsibilities and difficulties that life had outside the home.

If the husband died, all land owned by the couple was now in the possession of the women. She would still have to pay off and debts she had to any one else--but if someone owed her--if that person didn't want to pay, there was nothing she could do. Women during this time had no standing in the courts so they could not take their debtors to courts. In order to keep from going broke, they would have to marry again (the father probably would not take her back in). In the new marriage all her land would go to the new husband.

I just heard a story of a modern day family. The woman was married to a man and had one son. Her husband died. In this case she did not remarry but her son was of age to take care of her. Instead of being on her own, she depended a lot on the on her son after she became a widow.

Coverture may not be the way the womens lives are not run now, but the idea is still ingrained in us. It has been more than 200 years since coverture was the way of life, but the theme is still around today. Families are still based around th idea of coverture. It may not be the law, but families still function in that way. Women tend to gravitate toward the men in their lives for protection, as it was back in time when coverture was prevalent. Many things have changed in our culture, but for the most part they just take on a different form.

We Hold These Truths

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This quote is from arguably the most famous document in American History: The Declaration of Indenpendence. Thomas Jefferson wrote it in 1776, and the document declared our independence from Britain.

All men are created equal. This line was revolutionary. This was an Enlightenment thought that said every man, no matter who you are, you are equal to everyone else. During this time, however, it only meant white men with property and free of debt. In order for a man to become a gentlemen in society, he could not work with his hands. Here is the conflicting idea behind author of the Declaration and the Declaration itself-- Thomas Jefferson himself at one point had of 276 slaves. This only a small part of the 100,000 slaves in America had the time of the Declaration. This Declaration of Indepence was widely accepted, so why weren't slaves emancipated? Why did it take until 1863 fro slaves to emancipated? The very life that the Thomas Jefferson enjoyed was because of slave labor. If all men are truely created equal, why did it not apply to blacks? Jefferson later said that blacks were endowed with the same natural rights as whites. Slavery took away the rights and property of blacks. If the country was really where all men are created equal-- the idea that our country was based on-- why weren't all men truely created equal?

Surrogates

Last night I went with a few friends to see the movie Surrogates. For those who havent seen it the basis of the movie is this: In the near future, almost every person has a robot that they control using their thoughts. Instead of going out (and risking danger) the person controls the robot to do life for them out of the safety of their own home. So instead of seeing people walk around throughout the day, you see robots. A person can customize their robot to look as they please. You can never really know what the true person looks like, only what the decide to create their robot to look like.

This idea is not unlike today. How can we truly know the people around us, but only what they choose to show us? Everybody has an idea of themselves that want people to see, and this may not always be who they really are. I can pretend to be great guitar player/hippie. If I show that successfully, then people will perceive that I am just that. It doesn't even to be that dramatic. If a person has a personality trait that they don't necessarily like, they can choose to not show it. How do we know if the personalities of the people around are the true ones or the ones they want us to see? Are they real or just the "surrogates?"

The Oars Of Leadership

Too much can be bad, but too little is also bad. We have heard this all the time through our lives. Too much salt in our diet can harm us, but too little will also. Drinking too much water can be dangerous, but drinking too little can certainly be just as bad. There has to be a good balance.

This is true in leadership. There is two types of leading: postional leadership and relational leadership. Postional is where one leads just out of his/her postion. As a boss in his factory is given power because of his postion over his employees. Relational is just that, the relationship between leaders and followers.

This is where the idea of the oars come. If any one has been out on a lake in a boat, there needs to be the right mix of the left oar and the right oar to get in the direction you need to go. Think of the left oar is positional leadership, and the right oar is relational. If you focus only on postional side of leadership (telling people what to do just because your postion gives you the power to do so) the boat will be going around in circles in the middle of the lake. If you use too much of the relational side of leadership (trying to be best friends with every one who is under you) once again you will be spinning in circles. A person needs to use both oars in the right amount to of each to have the most effective leadership. Use the resources your postion gives you bust alos get to know the people around you.