Author Archives: Michael Griffiths

More on Narcissism: Post by danah boyd

By

I discovered an excellent post called fame, narcissism, and MySpace by danah boyd, a PhD student at Berkeley and a fellow at USC.

Some excerpts:

Since the late 80s, the lottery system has become more magnificent and corporatized. While there’s nothing meritocratic about reality TV or the Spice Girls, the myth of meritocracy remains. Over and over, working class kids tell me that they’re a better singer than anyone on American Idol and that this is why they’re going to get to be on the show. This makes me sigh. Do i burst their bubble by explaining that American Idol is another version of Jerry Springer where hegemonic society can mock wannabes? Or does their dream have value?

And, even better:

Today, the Christian Industrial Complex has risen into power in both politics and corporate life, but their underlying mission is the same: justify poor people’s industrial slavery so that the rich and powerful can become more rich and powerful. Ah, the modernization of the Protestant Ethic.

This is a fascinating observation, particularly given that income inequality continues to rise.

Has parental indulgence spawned a culture that justifies and embraces extreme income inequality? Does the dream of being a sports star, raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, justify and require sports stars to make that much money? Are people encouraging wildly out-of-sync salaries to fuel their own dreams?

I’m Really Special: Reflections on Narcissism in College Students

By

I came across a recent article in the Seattle PI recently about how young college students are terribly narcissistic and it impacts their social lives. It’s interesting, because it reflects several things I’ve observed about people in general. The article itself has some limitations – it’s clearly biased (almost scare-mongering), as are the psychologists who performed the study. In fact, the study’s lead author is Jean Twenge, author of Generation Me. This study serves to re-affirm what she pointed out in her book.

 
 

It immediately brought to mind a quote from The Incredibles:

Helen: I can’t believe you don’t want to go to your own son’s graduation.
Bob: It’s not a graduation. He’s moving from the 4th grade to the 5th grade.
Helen: It’s a ceremony!
Bob: It’s psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity…

 
 

I’m in my second semester of college, and I’ve noticed some things while here. So allow me to generalize to a truly outrageous degree in my speculation…

College is a place simultaneously of burgeoning, impossible dreams and an incredible sense of entitlement. It’s like people are on a track to success (which, admittedly, is largely true; with slight variations depending how you define success).

Of course, college students might be ignorant, naïve, protected, and abstracted away from every care in the world – but they’re not stupid. Most realize the situation they’re in. That doesn’t make it any easier to accept, or understand the implications.

However, I haven’t noticed an outrageous amount of “narcissism.” Fellow students seem well aware of their limitations; they struggle in classes, feel overwhelmed with the amount they’re required to read, enjoy social situations but often feel forced into them by classes and sleeping arrangements. In short, it’s not much different from “real life” (excepting things like bills and real consequences for failure…).

I do agree with the study in that people don’t feel obliged to limit their dreams to what ‘could be possible.’ Why aim to work as just another faceless middle manager in a large corporation when you can aim at the top? It’s simply logical – just much harder.

I prefer to be around people who believe that they are capable of great things.

A philosophy paper…

By

This is a philosophy paper I wrote recently, and rather liked.

 

Topic:

In the Apology, Socrates claims that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. What does he mean? Do you agree? Justify your views.

Response:

Socrates concluded that “the unexamined life is not worth living for men” (Plato, Apologia) in his famous defense prior to his execution.

Socrates literally believed that an unexamined life is worse than death; this can be derived from his beliefs about morality and death stated in the Apologia and Phaedo.

However, Socrates’ conclusion is incomplete and predicated on the assumption that the soul is immortal. It is not relevant to a person who does not believe in the immortal soul and an afterlife.

An examination of Socrates’ beliefs about death and morality reveal his priorities, which lead him to make the conclusion that life is not worth living. Socrates stated that “death is something [he] couldn’t care less about” (Plato, Apologia) and that his whole concern was “not to do anything unjust or impious” (Plato, Apologia). He valued his ethics more than he valued his life, and upheld his ethics at risk to his life on occasions previous to his trial.

He also believed that the “soul is evidently immortal” (Plato, Phaedo) and that it is far preferable to “[ignore] the pleasures of the body […] and [adorn] his soul […] with moderation, righteousness…” (Plato, Phaedo) and so on. The purpose of life is to enrich the immortal soul; consequently, a life is not worth living if it does not enrich the soul in some way. Socrates did not fear death because he dedicated himself to adorning his soul.

However, Socrates did not believe that one can adorn the soul by unquestioningly follow ethical beliefs; they are so often incorrect or incomplete. He made himself distinctly unpopular by demonstrating that most men who claimed to be wise did not, in actuality, have any basis for their beliefs. In an attempt to fulfill his belief of the purpose of life, Socrates attempted to discover their true meaning. He stated that it is “the greatest good to discuss virtue everyday” (Plato, Apologia), and through discussion uncover the true meaning – or as close as one can get – of virtue.

Socrates would (and did) choose death over living an unexamined life, for he believed that the unexamined life violated the purpose of life itself.

While Socrates’ conclusion is consistent with his beliefs, it is flawed when you dispense with some of his assumptions. Socrates’ conclusion depends on the assumption that some sort of afterlife exists, for he measures the worth of life in terms of how well one has ‘adorned his soul.’ In fact, he believed that earthly pursuits “[do] more harm than good” (Plato, Phaedo), and so should be avoided in favor of virtue and learning. Essentially, Socrates believed that a certain way of life was best, and the extent to which one achieves that determined how ‘good’ one is.

Referring to his conclusion, the worth of a life is determined by how ‘examined’ it is. However, if we dispense with the premise of an afterlife and the immortality of the soul, Socrates’ conclusion becomes less than convincing. If we can prove that an unexamined life is worth more than the death of an unexamined life, Socrates’ conclusion is false.

Assuming that the soul does not exist, we can conceptually measure how ‘good’ or worthwhile a life is in two ways: internally or externally (neither is practical in real life). An internal evaluation would determine the extent to which the person conforms to his ethical beliefs, and an external evaluation measure the degree in which the person’s life benefits his family, friends, and neighbors (collectively ‘society’). The internal measurement is flawed because the existence of an ethical belief does not make it good or worthwhile. For instance, an ethic that states you should not interfere with other people out of respect can be taken to the extreme of ignoring or overlooking signs of child abuse; something which benefits no one (not even the parents of the abused child). Conforming to the ethic would be measured as a worthwhile choice under the internal evaluation, where it should clearly be negative. In contrast, the external examination would measure it as a negative choice because the choice negatively affects society.

Using the external evaluation, a life is worthwhile if it has a net benefit to society. This largely invalidates Socrates’ conclusion that an “unexamined life is not worth living for men” (Plato, Apologia): the only way that an examined life would be worth more than an unexamined life is if the life examined contributed more to society; and in every respect, an unexamined life is worth living if it contributes to society. There is the possibility that an examined life is less beneficial to society than an unexamined life, if examining life makes one less productive and less beneficial to society than otherwise.

This leads us into direct conflict with Socrates on another aspect – he believed that “the pleasures of the body and its ornamentation […] [do] more harm than good” (Plato, Phaedo). However, as long as those pleasures benefit society it is worthwhile continuing to live. We know from modern economics and that consumption of goods and services raises the quality of life in nations due to supply and demand; a net benefit to society. Additionally, while it’s impossible to ascertain whether or not an unexamined life will positively benefit society or not, we know absolutely that no life at all cannot benefit society. Life is worthwhile as long as it has a net benefit on society – examined or not.

Socrates’ conclusion that an “unexamined life is not worth living for men” (Plato, Apologia) is one of the most famous phrases in philosophy. However, like all conclusions it is dependent on the premises that underlie the conclusion. One of Socrates’ premises is that the soul is immortal and that life should be spent enriching the soul for its “journey to the underworld.” (Plato, Phaedo) If we dispense with that belief, we can determine that Socrates’ argument is incomplete; substituting his premise that the degree to which a life is worthwhile depends on how much it adorns the soul for measuring how worthwhile a life is depending on how beneficial it has been to society invalidates his conclusion.

Bibliography

Plato. “Apologia.” Plato. The Trial and Death of Socrates. Ed. John M. Cooper. Trans. George M. A. Grube. Third Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 2000. 23-42.

Plato. “Phaedo.” Plato. The Trial and Death of Socrates. Ed. John M. Cooper. Trans. George M. A. Grube. Third Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2000. 55-58.