Getting what we deserve is one of the most common desires we usually share. Nonetheless, what we deserve is down to subjective stands. Surely, we cannot all agree on the amount of outcome we should take considering our previous efforts. Some people would be happier if we shared a part of our rewards, while some others may agree with having more individualistic ways. Therefore, our personal work —no matter how hard it was— always meet contextual factors and follow unpredictable patterns. The path of our work and its consequence is never a straight line, and it’s important to us to accept this underlying principle. That’s not to say, however, that every of our actions doesn’t have any value.
Liberal. That single word is changeable within the context. It could mean opposite ideas. In North America, it seems leftist. But if you say neoliberal, you are shaking the concept again. Maybe it is not coincidence for these ‘accidental’ similar words being different in a prefix (which calls for ‘new’).
There have been many discussions about mass media and culture products. Some people deplore the ‘strong liberal bias’ from Hollywood to other forms of art. Now suppose that Hollywood has indeed a liberal agenda. How can we believe that the final product embraces equalitarian views while the means of production belongs to a limited set of enterprises? From this perspective, Hollywood would be a perfect reflection of neoliberalism: free market, expanded society, ultra-connected world.
What about indie films? Are those another product of neoliberalism? That totally depends on what indie films are we talking about. Sometimes, the attitude of a film’s members (actors, director, scriptwriters…) tells us more than the film’s message. It doesn’t matter if these people are commenting against injustice in social networks like Facebook, Instagram or Twitter; but you will never see them in a local social movement. Influence derived from fame is relevant for protesting, but that doesn’t quit the fact that these celebrities will rarely be willing to compromise their comfort for standing up for a social issue.
God is dead. That is one of the most popular quotes in philosophy, concretely on Friedrich Nietzsche’s work. What does Nietzsche say has been widely discussed, so there are almost as many interpretations as readers.
One of them is that God, not just a deity, but the concept of unity and metaphysics, has reached to its very end. So it includes reason, ultrapositivism, scientism and everything that ressembles platonic ideas (universal and abstract thoughts).
Reading Nietzsche, we can think: Ok, historically speaking; religion, universal moral and great reason are no more what guide us. It is nihilism and materialism.
But more than a contextual issue, I think the assertion which says God is dead never ends. It is a constant pursuit we must overcome. When we have crossed the first big ilusory fear, whatever it is (every kind of belief, knowledge or what we stick for because we need to control in order to have stability), we ought to see ourselves as humans.
What does that mean, to be human? That we always live needing something to live for, an explanation for our lives. Without them, we might perish. God, love, science, moral. Are these ideas true? I believe that is not the real question. We must ask how are those limiting our lives, and what we should do for a next step.
Fear will always be there. We just need to acknowledge our human condition. To grow, to live, to breath. Ultimately, that’s what Nietzsche was referring to: do not escape from the struggles of your life, but embrace them, fight them, and grow up in the process.
Critical thinking is one of the most valuable, demanded skills. However, not many people know what does this concept mean. With ‘creativity’, critical thinking is probably the fashion word in today’s bussiness world. But in the same way, we are lacking of creativity and critical thinking the most. What is the problem, then?
The main issue there is that critical thinking and creativity imply autonomy, an independent mind. Many schools take a correct approach when teaching, but they forget the central point of the whole question: letting students make up their mind by inquiring and getting their hands dirty. In other words, teaching students how to be the source of the information, instead of teaching them what the answer is (which is important, too).
The next step is to suggest what kind of methods should be applied to ensure a greater critical thinking in students. Because all of it can be summarized in the idea of ‘curiosity’, people have to be encouraged to open their inquiring mind. This can be done by making projects and taking a more personal approach (e.g. How is Shakespeare related to my daily live and what can I learn from his writings?).
In the long run, critical thinking has an essential compound in our own experiences. That cannot be taught away from our lives in a fully impersonal way.
Small things are paralell to big ones. In the social area, I can notice patterns which are applicable for both a classroom and a nation. However, there are tiny variables that change the structure, making it distinctive.
Getting to the point: Social Media is one of our multiple ways to perform in front of an audience.
When we are under our public persona, we want to show the desired parts of our personality. It wouldn’t be adequate if we could show everything, like the shadow. Social Media is the same. Whether we are interested in being authentic or cool, we are always looking for an impression.
That’s why Social Media is nothing more than a Public Relations strategy. The difference is that we are not working on the public face of a company or an association; we are doing it for our identity. It presents some advantages, but there are also problems. Continue reading