What is a bystander?
He (or she) is a person who stands by (not to be repetitive) and watches as something goes on. Of course, like every other word in the English language, it has become something else. It is no more irrelevant in terms of aloofness and involvement. Indeed, a bystander is apathetic. If it is not, then my argument depends upon such a definiton. If you deny this defintion, so be it. My argument does not change. Just replace the damn word.
The basic mentality of a bystander is accepted. He (or she) does nothing because "someone else will." So from where does this mentality come from? An innate evil in every person's soul? For one thing, this explanation is inadequate if, for no other reason, because how can every human be evil if no two humans are the same. If experiences make human personality, a theorem agreed upon by many a post-Freudian psychologists, then there is no denying no two experiences are the same, so two two personalities are the same--all humans cannot possibly evil.
I think this mentality extends from elsewhere, a philosophy that is the only philosophy followed by today's politically-challenged generation. So, I will attempt to describe this said set of ideas. Accordingly, there exists a dichotomy: one's "vocation" and one's "private life." No doubt, these sphere's are seen everywhere. Just look at your local grocery store's magazines. No celebrity, at least when it is negative, wants the paparazzi to invade his (or her) private life. But from where does this private life come from but the ubiquitous capitalist presence. Having 9-to-5, most citizens of a capitalist society have reason to separate the two. But just how far can this separation extend?
Considering a few philosophy majors, how many American college students actually read or, for that matter, are well-read in principles and how many of those actually apply learned philosophies? Not enough students apply what they learned in school to their "private lives." The reason is quite very simple. Education lies in the realm of vocation. People learn to promote what "they want to do for the rest of their life." Why else do we continuously hear "but I don't need this for what I'm going to do."
Not only is this dichotomy very well defined, it is applied. Consider the democratic right to vote. Why don't most citizen's of a democracy vote? If I do well in the vocational realm, I will do will in my private life. To this I will surely face criticism from the very people who fit it. But there are of course more explicitly stated reasons. "My vote won't matter." Why, it does. At least as much as it needs to. No one person's vote is to matter more than another's or the whole's. But that doesn't mean its purely majoritarian--there are many election in which the victory is dependent on a minority. But the root of this mentality is in another principle: "someone else will do it." If I don't do it, there nearly 100 million other people that will. But, in fact, only 53% of them do. The other 47% just depend on one another, each of whom does nothing. So from where does this dependency come from but the marketplace? If I do this - my vocation - I won't have to worry about anything else as I will simply use the money - or other sorts of capital - that I get from working and get it anyway. Indeed, someone else will do it.
Citizens of capitalist society encounter an apathy that democracy theorists have been describing since the 19th century. But this apathy is not innate in mankind. When we face problems we will do something about. Why else do we war? Why else do we protest? But these sort of realities are obfuscated by the capitalist ideal. Progression is dependent on adaptation, a dynamism that results from thought. Thought allows us to choose between things so it create choice. Choice is the basis of adaptation: the proper choice is the difference between successful adaptation and failed adaptation. And, the most obvious connection, adaptation is the basis for evolution. It is the one thing you cannot deny in all that Charles Darwin discusses. Evolution, progression is dependent on movement, dynamism. The sense of comfort that capitalism provides - do this and keep doing this and someone else will do everything else for you - stagnates society. Why must we protest the government? Why must we challenge the status quo? Why must we not study politics, economics and history if they are the basis of society? Because someone else will.
He (or she) is a person who stands by (not to be repetitive) and watches as something goes on. Of course, like every other word in the English language, it has become something else. It is no more irrelevant in terms of aloofness and involvement. Indeed, a bystander is apathetic. If it is not, then my argument depends upon such a definiton. If you deny this defintion, so be it. My argument does not change. Just replace the damn word.
The basic mentality of a bystander is accepted. He (or she) does nothing because "someone else will." So from where does this mentality come from? An innate evil in every person's soul? For one thing, this explanation is inadequate if, for no other reason, because how can every human be evil if no two humans are the same. If experiences make human personality, a theorem agreed upon by many a post-Freudian psychologists, then there is no denying no two experiences are the same, so two two personalities are the same--all humans cannot possibly evil.
I think this mentality extends from elsewhere, a philosophy that is the only philosophy followed by today's politically-challenged generation. So, I will attempt to describe this said set of ideas. Accordingly, there exists a dichotomy: one's "vocation" and one's "private life." No doubt, these sphere's are seen everywhere. Just look at your local grocery store's magazines. No celebrity, at least when it is negative, wants the paparazzi to invade his (or her) private life. But from where does this private life come from but the ubiquitous capitalist presence. Having 9-to-5, most citizens of a capitalist society have reason to separate the two. But just how far can this separation extend?
Considering a few philosophy majors, how many American college students actually read or, for that matter, are well-read in principles and how many of those actually apply learned philosophies? Not enough students apply what they learned in school to their "private lives." The reason is quite very simple. Education lies in the realm of vocation. People learn to promote what "they want to do for the rest of their life." Why else do we continuously hear "but I don't need this for what I'm going to do."
Not only is this dichotomy very well defined, it is applied. Consider the democratic right to vote. Why don't most citizen's of a democracy vote? If I do well in the vocational realm, I will do will in my private life. To this I will surely face criticism from the very people who fit it. But there are of course more explicitly stated reasons. "My vote won't matter." Why, it does. At least as much as it needs to. No one person's vote is to matter more than another's or the whole's. But that doesn't mean its purely majoritarian--there are many election in which the victory is dependent on a minority. But the root of this mentality is in another principle: "someone else will do it." If I don't do it, there nearly 100 million other people that will. But, in fact, only 53% of them do. The other 47% just depend on one another, each of whom does nothing. So from where does this dependency come from but the marketplace? If I do this - my vocation - I won't have to worry about anything else as I will simply use the money - or other sorts of capital - that I get from working and get it anyway. Indeed, someone else will do it.
Citizens of capitalist society encounter an apathy that democracy theorists have been describing since the 19th century. But this apathy is not innate in mankind. When we face problems we will do something about. Why else do we war? Why else do we protest? But these sort of realities are obfuscated by the capitalist ideal. Progression is dependent on adaptation, a dynamism that results from thought. Thought allows us to choose between things so it create choice. Choice is the basis of adaptation: the proper choice is the difference between successful adaptation and failed adaptation. And, the most obvious connection, adaptation is the basis for evolution. It is the one thing you cannot deny in all that Charles Darwin discusses. Evolution, progression is dependent on movement, dynamism. The sense of comfort that capitalism provides - do this and keep doing this and someone else will do everything else for you - stagnates society. Why must we protest the government? Why must we challenge the status quo? Why must we not study politics, economics and history if they are the basis of society? Because someone else will.
No comments:
Post a Comment