Dialectics: Courage and Progression

Progression is inevitable in our world; we are constantly pushing towards change and this trend will really never stop. There are many ways to define progress: in arts, sciences, human relations, economics, education, athletics, and just about anything else. Because we are studying Jane Eyre in English and things like World War II and Gandhi in History, I found it an appropriate time to speak on human progression.

The other side of this dialectic is courage. If we look back at history, we see that certain people had an immeasurable amount of it. These people, like Martin Luther King Jr. or Abraham Lincoln, were extremely brave and typically faced huge odds against them. They were able to persevere with some kind of burning passion for what they were doing.

The dialectic is interesting because all progression is courageous, but not all truly courageous people push for progression. Any time something progresses or changes, there must be a sort of courage involved. This stands true even for something small, like a family progressing by getting new jobs or a new house-- if courage isn't there, the move won't be made.

On the other hand, some people who are courageous unfortunately do not wish to progress. Some of history's biggest figures, like Adolf Hitler or Napoleon, had courage but did not use it to push for beneficial change. Instead, they turned around and searched for regression. In Hitler's case, he was brave enough to stand in front of a hurting nation and promise that he would make it all better. Then he acted terribly, with a disgusting measure of racial discrimination and a complete lack of humanity.

Courage is essentially a catalyst for our world's occurrences. It can lend itself to progression or regression, but in the hands of the right people it will certainly do good for our world. Progression itself is the key to how our world works; as soon as we stop changing everything will fall apart. This is why brave people like Charlotte Brontë have stories that still resonate now: they were able to change the world in great ways, and their influence was profound.

We can learn from this dialectic in many ways. It's important to know that true courage isn't unreachable, as long as you believe wholeheartedly in something. Martin Luther and Gandhi had a passion for their beliefs, to the point where it became a life's quest to achieve what they wanted. If we can find this passion, and a true sense of courage, then progression is bound to happen and we can change the world.

Blogging Around: February and March

Darrell had an interesting post on Obama and postmodernism, where he made a convincing argument that our president is influenced by postmodern thought. I commented:

Darrell, this is a cool post. I've never really thought of Obama as a postmodernist, but your realizations are pretty convincing. Also, the idea of physical postmodernism is interesting-- the background of a person may have a profound influence on who they are.

It's a good idea to analyze our world leaders like this because we need to know where they're coming from. If we don't know anything about their background or philosophy, then we're just following them blindly. If I had to guess, I would say that many of the world's leaders are influenced by postmodernism.

Lauren blogged about Food, Inc. and how it analyzes the way we run our food system. She also made comparisons to Ishmael. I commented:

Although I haven't seen this movie, I've heard a lot about it and it actually sounds interesting. I think it's cool that you related it back to Ishmael, and I see the parallels. The idea of us ruling over all other life and being able to manipulate it for our own good is a little disturbing.

As you said, the way we produce food does have some benefits. In the end, people get more food and it costs less to make. But I think at some point we have to set a limit as to how far we're taking all this.