Intentionally Untitled @varun-krishnan - Tumblr Blog

Are you bored...?

Boredom. A word that evokes many images and almost all of them bad. Why is that? Our society views boredom as a disease which must be instantly treated when caught. I remember how quickly my dad tried to find something for me to do when I came moping up to him to complain about my boredom. Even now if my younger sister comes up to me and says, she's bored I instantly try to list a slew of things she can do, desperately trying to cut off the progress of the infection as quickly as possible. In fact, our society has invented a vaccine for boredom, a preventative measure called the cell phone that injects novelty in our lives the exact instant we feel even a trickling of boredom arising within us. It's incredible how fast people pull out their phones the minute a webpage loads too slowly, the second a text gets boring, the millisecond a conversation stalls. Going out every night, or joining a frat, or watching Netflix, or scrolling through Instagram, or...the list goes on. It seems so much of our actions are as much as a distraction as they are an escape from boredom. Why are we so afraid of being bored? Why do we feel the need to be continuously bombarded with newness? Whenever I get bored I instantly get the feeling I'm doing something wrong. After all, you only have a certain amount of time on this planet, shouldn't you try to make sure you at least aren't bored during it? Shouldn't you try to be maximizing your time before your ever-dimming flame of life is blown out? I guess from that angle it's genuinely scary being bored. It's scary to think that you are misspending life by being bored instead of doing something...doing anything even if it is just pulling out your phones to scroll past a blur of images. Because the alternative is just too frightening.

Almost the same worry arises with unhappiness. It's extremely difficult not to feel that when you are unhappy, you are doing something wrong with your life. And maybe that's why boredom is as terrifying as it is. Because boredom is almost always followed by unhappiness. So should our life just be constantly trying to outrun boredom for as long as we can? And what if we trip on a snag in the road and the feeling catches up to us? The road of life is full of cracks and divots, and it's almost inevitable you're going to stumble at least once. What then? Did you do something wrong if you're lying on the ground and boredom envelops you? Are those moments when you're struggling to get back up moments where you are wasting life? I guess the answer is those moments are what you want them to be. If the moment you feel unhappy, or the moment you feel bored you fervently tell yourself that you are failing to enjoy life, then those moments will genuinely be failures to you. It's tough to see what Cool contributes to this discussion. Because it's hard to argue that Cool relishes boredom or implores you to seek out. After all, a huge critique Cool has on our modern culture is how boring everyone and everything has become. Not only the monotonous cycle of studying and working but the predictability across songs, movies, or even people. And yet, I don't think Cool seeks to eradicate boredom out of our lives either. Because, like unhappiness, Cool sees boredom as not only inevitable but also a chance to reflect and grow. So I guess the distinction is being boring vs. being bored. The former Cool vehemently opposes, but the latter Cool realizes the importance of. But what I can't wrap my head around is if Cool advises you to seek out boredom. Just like I don't understand if Cool suggests you seek out unhappiness. I can comprehend Cool's stance on preexisting boredom or unhappiness as vehicles for growth, but I'm not sure if it preaches to actively seek those feelings out. I mean one of the pillars of Cool is hedonism, right? And it seems like you are taking a sledgehammer to the pillar if you simultaneously advocate the pursuit of unhappiness as well as pleasure. But I guess that's the paradox of Cool, and one that I think is an incredible barrier for anyone seeking to become cooler. Who would want to follow a philosophy where you are to endeavor for unhappiness or boredom especially if you're not already feeling those sentiments? It seems extremely counterintuitive.

For me at least, I find it extremely hard to remain bored. Next time you're eating with someone just try and sit there with neither party saying anything. It's uneasy, uncomfortable and almost impossible to remain in that delicate state for too long without someone either pulling out there phone or saying something. And I guess this phenomenon might be part of the answer to a question we posed at the beginning of the semester: Why are more people not Cool? Because in Cool you have to actively grapple with the feeling of boredom instead of distracting yourself from it. I mean think about how many opportunities there are for boredom to arise during a long walk or lengthy reading. And this time there is no pulling out your phone. You have to deal with the feeling of boredom, learn how to lasso it in, and keep the knot around it tight. Like many things in Cool, it really does take a lot of effort. A lot of effort to be content with boredom, to view it as a shadow that will always follow you no matter how often you pretend its not there. For boredom is a passenger with everyone but while most people stiffly ignore it, Cool turns around and shakes its hand. It's much easier to drink so much that you know you'll never be bored during a party. Much easier to join a frat so you know you'll never be bored during college. Much easier to constantly be on your phone so you know you'll never be bored during life. It's much harder, however, to spend your time riding a bike down a dusty sidewalk or taking the paintbrush to a canvas even if it means occasionally being in the unsettling but important position of being bored.

I want to end this post by trying to understand the boredom in my own life. Because being premed means a lot of time being bored. And I guess my question is, is this boredom any different from the boredom that might arise during taking a walk or writing a book? Is this boredom any different from the boredom that Cool seeks to embrace rather than eliminate? I don't know, but my intuition is yes, it is different. The boredom that Cool tolerates is boredom that occurs during the seeking of pleasure. Cool's okay with the sporadic boredom when you're, say, composing a song but is more critical with consistent and routine boredom that is an indication that something is wrong in your life. And maybe that's why its so hard to resist going to your phone or striking up a random conversation when you're studying. Maybe that's why workplace drama and pranks are so rampant. Because we're trying to distract ourselves from an entrenched boredom that is so deeply saturated in our culture that we must constantly distract ourselves from it. Because if you truly didn't alleviate the boredom that comes with pulling an all-nighter studying or working a desk job you hate, then you wouldn't be able to continue those activities much longer. And society needs you to continue to activities. So cue the omnipresence of the cell phone. So I guess I'm kind of contradicting what I said earlier because boredom really can mean that there is a deep-rooted issue in your life. A boredom that doesn't briefly flare during an activity you enjoy, but rather a boredom that is so ubiquitous in your life that you are attempting to constantly distract yourself from its presence. Throughout this semester I've tried to convince myself that the boredom of studying is no different from the boredom that will emerge from following Cool's lifestyle. But now I think that these two types of boredom are only similar in name, and the gravity and significance of each are vitally different.

Responding to Zach

@the-real-tarzan

Great post Zach.

The question is what if people's lives weren't filled with "studying, test taking, being bored, working..."? What if people could do what they want all the time? It's sad to say but humans are lazy, and for many people, I think a life without work would mean they would just become even more preoccupied with the entertainment industry that we're surrounded by. Just look what people do in their free time when they're not following the trail of yarn rolled out by society. People don't take bike rides or relish in the sunset; instead, they tap tirelessly at their phones or stare lifelessly at Netflix. And part of that, as you said is a distraction from their unwanted life, but part of that is because it's simply the easiest thing to do. It takes a lot of effort to be Cool, to choose sitting over a lake over laying in bed, and frankly, a lot of people are not going to voluntarily become Cool if the necessity for work suddenly disappeared. And this is not a new idea. Leaders all throughout human history have known that, if given a choice, people will take the path of least resistance. Those rulers knew that you had to force people to adopt a lifestyle, be that a lifestyle of work, a lifestyle of conformity, or even a lifestyle of Cool. A lot of the Cool people we studied over the course of this class adopted Cool as a result of necessity, they didn't take it on because they wanted to but because they needed to. It's funny but a lot of people rely on getting told what they do, and when they're life is not dictated by some external force they'll spend their time on their phones, or sleeping, or just being bored until they're told what to do next. Do you know how many people I've talked to who said they were bored during spring break? Far too many. Is this a byproduct of the culture industry or will most humans just waste their time if they're not forced to study or work? Would people even turn to Cool if they no longer had to go to college or to get a job? I don't know the answer but from what I've seen of how people spend their summer breaks, which should be a time to slip from the choke-hold of the culture industry, even if just briefly, I think the answer is no.

I think Cool relies a lot on the side-effects of society's preoccupation with work and progress. After all, the blossoming of art only came after humans had found a way to sustainably produce food, establish shelter, and efficiently utilize resources. And the more technology develops, the more people can focus on art. After all, I doubt you could be a professional painter in 10,000 BCE where the majority of your time was focused on how to find your next meal. And that trend continues today where the more productive, efficient, and technologically advanced humans are, the more people there are who can enjoy a bike ride or watch the sunset instead of searching for water or fighting off hunger. Yes, places like Africa which don't have that benefit were actually the birthplace of Cool, but is that really the circumstances we want people to have to be Cool in? Pablo Picasso was also Cool and I think it can be universally agreed that the Cool lifestyle he could practice in a more advanced society is far preferable to the one forced upon to African tribes. And therefore, I think societal progress is critical not because it helps alleviate human suffering, but because it allows more people to be Cool. After all, if you were born having to get a job so your mother could have food, I can imagine it would be tough to escape the labor market in which you're now confined.

And that's the problem of Cool...it won't progress society. If all our ancestors just acted Cool, we would not be close to the sophisticated and advanced society in which James Dean or The Beatles could enjoy being Cool. So I guess my question is, shouldn't Cool actually want a certain subset of the population not to be cool? After all, people's willingness to progress humanity by getting a job and contributing is what has allowed others like Brandon Davis to wander the country instead of worrying about how to eat. The United States has become advanced enough where even if you have no money you can still find a way to get food. And that can only be possible in a society that has a large portion of its people working to make that possible. So, with Cool's classic paradox, does Cool need the uncool if Cool wishes to grow? Does capitalism have its advantage in the fact that when more people are running in the hamster wheel, that means more people can get off knowing that the wheel will continue to run? I think that uncool has an intimate relationship with Cool in the fact that the society in which Cool flourishes would fall apart if not held together by those who choose not to live the Cool lifestyle. And I guess this ties back to the beginning of the post because even if people no longer felt the obligation to make money or go to work, I'm not sure they would turn to Cool. And therefore, money has to excite people, or else society would stall and go backward till we are back at the point where the arts were just a luxury, and you didn't have time to take a walk because you weren't sure if someone was going to mug you. As sad as it is, if people didn't chase money, then no one would work and the society in which Andy Warhol or Lester Young had the chance to become Cool, wouldn't have existed. As we said in class, slaves couldn't be Cool because they didn't have enough freedom to do so, and so if our society doesn't maintain its productivity and sophistication many people wouldn't have the freedom to become Cool either.

And so Zach, I guess my extremely long-winded question is: Is the marketplace essential in the fact that it allows society to progress both technologically and socially thereby giving the opportunity for many more to become Cool? Do people who are uncool and propel the hamster wheel actually lower the barrier for others to become Cool? And hence, should Cool view the culture industry not as an enemy but as an unfortunate but necessary force to progress society and help others become and enjoy a type of Cool that isn't thrust upon them through extreme hardship but rather adopted through a newfound freedom?

Is Progress Killing Cool?

“When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life. Now that I am old, I know that it is.”

It might surprise you that the man behind this quote was Oscar Wilde. Yes, the same Oscar Wilde that talked about the importance of disobedience and the shallowness of most people's lives. The same poet who told us to be ourselves and lead the life we aren't currently leading. We viewed Wilde as a river that was unpolluted with the conventional thinkings of society and ran clear with the values of Cool. But this quote is an unseemly plastic bottle that bobs up and down in the otherwise pure water. A statement that stands apart from his sea of other thoughts. How do we integrate this image with his other notions that seem to criticize and preach deviation from the traditional cultural values? A little history about Wilde might help. Interestingly, Wilde was born wealthy and quickly assimilated into the social elite of his time. He was well known for his literary works, and his exuberance for life was easily seen from his outfits and writings. But then, he was arrested for homosexuality and lost virtually everything, including his money and respect. And like many hardships, this tragedy lead Wilde to the doorsteps of Cool. The cynical and mutinous Wilde we now read about might never have arisen if his culture didn't push him to the margins. But they did, and therefore, Wilde adopted Cool just like the many other oppressed minorities we studied.

But there is an important observation to be made here. While most of the persecuted minorities we studied never felt the air away from the frigid atmosphere on the mountain of Cool, Wilde actually did. He was once part of the society that had excluded him...and he had enjoyed his time there. Hence, while it is possible that this quote was an ironic jab at society's preoccupation with materialism, I believe it signifies a deeper part of Wilde. This quote might be a representation of the portion of Wilde that still longed for the comforting caress of a society that he no longer had access to. Wilde died in poverty and great pain with a disease he had no money to treat. Hence, it makes sense why Wilde, even with his rebellious notions, still longed for a key to unlock the barred gates to a community he was once a member of. And, for him, the key was wealth. This leads to some interesting questions. Would those that donned Cool out of necessity gladly discard it if they were given a proper place in society? Would African-Americans cease being Cool if they were given equal rights? Would the homeless no longer be Cool if they were given riches and a mansion? After all, it makes sense to listen to Cool's call when it is your only option, but if you were given money or respect what's stopping you from taking those things and running? Would Wilde, if suddenly bestowed with cash and civility, jump back into the society he was critiquing? Are those who are forced to wear the shades of Cool just longing for a way into the culture that they are ostracized by? And what would they do with those shades once they found a way in? Do minorities become less Cool as they gain more rights or more wealth or more power? Sure they could continue being Cool, but will they when there's no longer a need to? Is the Cool that characterized so many minorities slowly vanishing as society becomes more equal? Cool thrived in the presence of war and social inequality, but if those things disappear will Cool disappear along with them? As we slowly march to a more egalitarian, peaceful, and technologically advanced society will Cool just be a dusty page in a forgotten history book? Or maybe a new type of Cool will emerge from the ashes of the old, a Cool that is not a reactionary defense mechanism born of necessity but instead, a proactive attitude practiced by choice. I guess Cool is at somewhat of a crossroads and it will be interesting to see which path Cool will take to survive...

Can Cool Change the World?

Private rebellion. Two words that we continuously use to help define Cool. But Cool is like a puff of smoke, the minute you try to grab it, to try and capture it, it melts away in your grasp. By defining Cool we limit Cool, and hence, must be careful when confining it to the notion of private rebellion. Because Cool, with its characteristic paradox, is not just a private rebellion but also a public one. How? First off, there's no doubting that private resistance is an important accessory of Cool's outfit. The mask of impassivity, the calculated withholding of emotion, and the disinterest in social activism all attest to this aspect of Cool. And yet, Cool also sponsors narcissism as a shield to deflect the oppressive arrows of society. Narcissism enables those who are persecuted to maintain their pride and also allows for the celebration of yourself instead of the idolization of other entities, be it humans or Gods. And this is where the paradox arises for narcissism is almost never solely practiced in a private context. Instead, many times narcissism manifests itself in the most public arenas possible such as on stage or the big screens. Just look at James Dean or Marlon Brando who were undoubtedly cool but also chose one of the most public careers possible: acting. It takes a certain amount of narcissism to become an actor, to enjoy seeing yourself magnified tenfold and being watched by thousands. James Dean didn't rebel against societal conventions in the corner of some bar but instead, chose to convey it as publicly as possible. A private rebellion he made public. Or how about the score of cool musicians we studied who decided to celebrate their talents not alone in their room but up on stage in front of an adoring crowd. Or if you really want proof of how public narcissism is just take a look around you. We live in a society where we worship ourselves, uploading countless selfies so that others can confirm our importance and refining our outfits daily to ensure our peers' admiration. And as we discussed in class, this is one of Cool's legacies, a narcissistic commitment to ourselves. Narcissism has led many Cool people we've studied to choose an overtly public demonstration of their defiance rather than a private one, and hence rebuffing the notion of a private rebellion as a criterion of Cool. This is why I believe Cool can change the world. It's interesting how we saw 1968 as a rejection of Cool because of Cool's inability to roll forward the wheel of society. After all, people like James Dean or Elvis Presley or Pablo Picasso did transform the culture while also being cool. They knew that a private rebellion is only half the flint needed to spark a fire, the other half being obtained by sharing that private rebellion with others. And to share that rebellion with others you must be narcissistic, to feel that what you have is important enough to share, and you are an important enough person to share it. This is the public face of cool, a face that can motivate an entire generation to play music or go into acting, to shun the societal norms and forge their own path. It's a face that musicians like Johnny Cash, dancers like Anita Berber, or painters like Frida Kahlo wore, a face that masks a private rebellion while also publicly sharing it. By latching onto narcissism, Cool has inevitably put itself in the public eye and has thereby undoubtedly influenced many who were watching.

A Perfectly Crafted Society

What was the last song you listened to or movie you watched? Did your mind predict the rhythm of the entire song from just the first few notes? Did you expect the ending of the movie before it was over? More importantly, were you satisfied when the beat continued, or the hero triumphed? How would you have felt if the chorus suddenly changed mid-tune or the protagonist ended up dying a disgraceful death? Would you turn off the radio in disgust or walked out the theater feeling your money was wasted? Theodor Adorno, a German philosopher and composer, would argue the vast majority would experience those feelings of exasperation. Why? Because our society has conditioned us to expect and enjoy the predictability that is pervasive in so much of our lives. Adorno spent his life characterizing the unseen gears that rotate our society, and by analyzing his life and works, we can see if those gears are still in motion today.

From a very young age, Theodor Adorno had an intimate relationship with music. His mother was a talented singer, and Adorno himself learned to play Beethoven pieces at only twelve years old. Known for his philosophical contributions, Adorno was also a passionate composer and musical scholar all his life, and simultaneously taught philosophy and music in the years leading up to his death. When he was thirty-one, he was exiled from the increasingly Nazi Germany due to his Jewish heritage, and so began Adorno’s relocation to America and his first touch by the clammy hands of western culture. Perhaps one of his most illustrative encounters was when he was offered to help conduct a research project into the rising impact of radio music. Adorno thought the information the project gathered was being used as a vehicle to philosophically explore the shifting landscape of America, but instead, was greeted with the fact that it was to see if listeners could be targeted with specific stations based on their likes and dislikes. Adorno was shocked and disgusted by the culture that attempted to so blatantly quantify and predict its member’s behaviors. And yet, this incident, he began to notice, was just one finger of a gloomy fog that hung over the entire country. He noticed that “culture today is infecting everything with sameness,” and gave the name to the body propagating such uniformity as “the culture industry.” He loathed the nationalist regime of his home country and anxiously discerned many parallels between fascist Germany and capitalist America. Adorno saw an industry that sought to promote conformity and distractions as a means to control its consumers and to hide its true motives under the guise of an intricate reward and punishment system. But what might be the most worrying is that the culture that Adorno perceived more than 50 years ago might still be among us.

When we look at our car, or phone, or clothes, or house we feel connected to these objects since we feel we chose the models that are unique to us. Just look at the pockets of society that have erupted who are fiercely attached to their Ferrari or claw at anyone who claims a Samsung is better than an iPhone(it is). But actually how different are these products from each other? Adorno argues that the sameness that permeates the mass-marketed commodities of our world is hiding under the very guise of these different products. He says that “the mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same. That the difference between the models of Chrysler and General Motors is fundamentally illusory is known by any child, who is fascinated by that very difference.” And you just have to take a look at the Greek life on this campus to confirm this statement. Each frat claims its own distinctive sets of features, and the continuous competition of frats seems to indicate that ideological opposites exist among them. And yet, like the difference between one phone and another, only the surface is different while the internals remain the same. Adorno also notices this in “hit songs, stars, and soap operas,” observing how they “conform to types recurring cyclically as rigid invariants.” Furthermore, he extends this to say “Films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce.” This is profoundly prophetic as we have reached a point where we will mentally ingest whatever we see on the screen even if it is plainly a cash grab or marketing ploy. Nowadays, movies will use product placement in scenes even if it shatters the viewer’s sense of illusion. Artists will shamelessly create a piece specifically for the advertising of a company’s products, and people won’t even blink an eye. As Adorno writes, those in power no longer “take much trouble to conceal the structure” of the culture industry because we have become so accustomed to the continuous similarities of media formulated for profit. A profit that is well guarded by an elaborate honor system.

Adorno recognized a subtle but powerful reward and punishment system that helps sustain the culture industry even today. For example, it is highly unlikely that if you’re reading this paper, you are not in, or have not gone to, college. Our society sells college with the vigor of any good salesman, claiming it will lead to future financial freedom and stability. And they’re right...but only because it was designed that way. As Adorno writes, gaining specialist knowledge, like what college and graduate school give you, “is a feature of the irrationally systematic nature of this society that it reproduces, passably, only the lives of its loyal members.” Essentially this means that it’s a mechanism of rewarding those who play by the rules our culture has laid out. But what about someone who deviates from this path? Well, they’ll lose access to money and will be unable to find a job, and most importantly they’ll be seen as “an outsider,” and an outsider, per the culture industry, is “the gravest guilt.” This is especially true now, where we are taught from a very young age to avoid the unemployed and uneducated, to ignore them in the secret hope they’ll disappear. It’s incredibly telling how hard it is for people to make eye contact with the homeless, or how often people disregard the opinions of the uneducated. Even those who fail to fulfill less critical societal obligations like marriage or kids are subtly ostracized in our world. Adorno even realizes that in movies people who don’t check of these societal boxes are “at best, an eccentric, an object of maliciously indulgent humor; but mostly he is a villain and is identified as such.” In this way, the culture industry can continue to self-propagate itself by elevating those who align themselves with its values and crush those who don’t.

One of Adorno’s most poignant understandings was the dangerous relationship between our culture and entertainment. As Adorno puts it, “the culture industry remains the entertainment business. Its control of consumers is mediated by entertainment.” Like a child fascinated with the bright colors of a lollipop, we are fascinated with the dazzling lights of the entertainment that constantly surround us. It is a mechanism those in charge use to ensure that we are looking the other way, that we are always “putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display.” The birth of the cell phone has only accelerated this agenda as now you are never without an object to distract you from reality. I have noticed that the instant anyone becomes uncomfortable they will pull out their phone lest they have to confront their unpleasant situation. Or how about the millions who come home after work and watch television to prevent themselves from thinking about the endless treadmill their life has become as a result of our culture? Adorno took this one step further and added that entertainment “is sought by those who want to escape the mechanized labor process so that they can cope with it again.” In colleges across the country, this couldn’t be further from the truth, where people party and get wasted to at least be able to walk lifelessly through their classes. But it’s not simply the “escape from bad reality,” instead, it’s an escape from “the last thought of resisting that reality.” And this is an important distinction. Because finding a way to cope with the undoubtedly depressing aspects of life is critical and necessary. But preventing yourself from reflecting how to actively resist and help change that reality is how those in power seek to keep us passive and compliant. We don’t use entertainment just to cope with reality, we use it to ignore reality, and hence, we continue to keep ourselves under the foot of the culture industry.

The culture industry has one more knife to sharpen the shackles that keep us bound and obedient: chance. Adorno studied the role of chance in society and wrote that “it serves as an alibi, giving the impression that the web of transactions and measures into which life has been transformed still leaves room for spontaneous, immediate relationships between human beings.” He argues that chance is used by those in control to give an appearance that life is not as rigid as the culture industry has made it. If you turn to the present, this can be seen in the form of game shows, cruize prizes, lotteries and many more events that help showcase how luck meets the everyday. When you see a contestant win a couple of thousand dollars or someone in your state winning the lottery, you can’t help but feel that the extraordinary can happen to the ordinary, and maybe that ordinary could be you. And yet it won’t be you, and the culture industry knows that. As Adorno writes “it is so minimal for each individual that it is best to write it off at once and rejoice in the good fortune of someone else, who might just as well be oneself but never is.” In our society, people are delighted when someone just like them spins a wheel and becomes a millionaire, even though their own monotonous life has not changed in any way. I can’t tell you how many of my friends invest in bitcoin just to hope for a chance to make it big, to break the chains that tether them to the tedium of going to class or getting a job. And yet they won’t make it but the longer they think they will, the longer they’ll stay on the relentlessly chugging train of the culture industry.

Theodor Adorno had to deal with a manipulative and fascist Germany that exiled him from his home country. And yet, when coming to America, instead of finding a window overlooking an individualistic society, he found a mirror that reflected the culture of his previous home, a culture that was now concealed by the booming voice of capitalism. Adorno recognized the uniformity that arose in a country driven by mass-marketed products and media. He observed the rewards to those who remained compliant and the punishing of those who didn’t. And what especially worried him was the use of entertainment and chance to control the members of the proclaimed culture industry. But what’s worse is that by exploring his writings it is now apparent that this culture industry has only grown larger in our time. From cellphones to pop stars, and game shows to frats, our society is the living embodiment of Adorno’s concerns. And unless you drag yourself to shore the tides of the culture industry will pull you in until all that surrounds you is a perfectly colored ocean of sameness.

Take comfort in discomfort

In class, we talked about how one of Cool's dogma is learning how to be comfortable in your own skin. And yet, as Cool has shown time and time again, this is but the first sip of a vastly complex beverage. We must analyze this idea like how one would cooly drink a Coke, calmly sip by sip instead of gulping it all in one go. It's tempting to quaff down the idea of comfortability and walk away feeling consoled and reassured by Cool's seemingly reiteration of the familiar mantra to love yourself. Yet if you had sat back and sipped on the refreshment, you would have realized that the drink is far more subtle and intricate. Anytime an idea in Cool seems straightforward and cliche it should be an immediate indication that something is wrong. Indeed, on the second and third sip, it becomes apparent that while Cool teaches you to be comfortable with yourself, it also advises you to be uncomfortable with yourself. Why? Well, Cool is fascinated with change as it acutely understands the dangers of a person or society stuck in one place too long. After all, as a historian, Cool notices how people have become accustomed to wealth and power and hence, resulting in oppressed minorities so those at the top can continue their lifestyle. For without change society fails to progress which is an incredible danger to those who rely on progress to equalize their position in the world. Hence, Cool rejects the one-dimensional stance of merely being comfortable in yourself and instead proposes that a little discomfort is necessary for anyone to achieve coolness. Because being cool is a continuous process of redefining yourself, a process that, like many things in life, is driven by the motivating beat of being uncomfortable.

In Response to Zach

@the-real-tarzan

What a great post Zach, and I totally see where you are coming from. Hopefully, I can paint the other side of the picture as well.

“Mathematics is the purest of the arts, as well as the most misunderstood…The mathematician’s art [is] asking simple and elegant questions about our imaginary creations, and crafting satisfying and beautiful explanations.” - Paul Lockhart(math professor)

Weird as it is, me and my father connected through the study of mathematics. My dad had a burning passion for math, and he sought to demonstrate to me the elegance and beauty of the subject. I still remember late nights where we stayed up exploring all the wonder that math had to offer. From the ability to predict the future with statistics to the remarkable simplicity of Euler's identity, the cleverness of graphs to the apparent paradoxes in calculus math to us was like a sandbox where you could always keep digging. A mathematician named G. H. Hardy said: “A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns.” And I wholeheartedly agree. Just like how a filmmaker is taught certain patterns to study and employ in their films, math is centered on patterns as well(mathematical formulas) just in a different language. And there lies the root of misconception with mathematics: the language. Just like how some people don't understand the beauty in some films, people also don't realize the magnificence of math because they don't understand the language. I have a friend in the music school who loves heavy metal for its technical skill and complex composition. And yet a layman would never realize the musical intricacies that tie a heavy metal piece together, for all they hear is loud noises and shouting. Similarly, the charm of math is only revealed through its language, or else it will seem like a boring mass of symbols seemingly acting randomly.

My dad not only had a passion for math but he was constantly amazed by the amazing technologic feats around us. If you just stop to think about it, it's downright unbelievable that we can talk to someone halfway around the world or virtualize reality. And as I grew older, I realized that these achievements were all grounded in applying the principles we learn in areas like physics, or chemistry, or math. And furthermore, if you read into these subjects, you start to realize that they are more alike then you think. After all, chemistry is simply the study of the physics of molecules, and biology is simply the study of the relationships of chemicals. On the first day of statistics, our professor told us that statistics is simply a branch of physics. For example the formula for calculating the average of a set of data? It's the same as calculating the center of mass for an object! Like what the hell?!? There's an amazing commonality that all fields share, as Hardy would say a type of pattern, and each field is simply trying to express that pattern through their own unique language. And that, to me, is why not only math, but physics, chemistry, music, cinematography are all fascinating because they all seek to understand, or at least explore, the how and whys of what we call life. Just like there's a stigma over art, I think there's a stigma against the sciences too. Namely, people view those studying it as drones who are suffering now so that they can reap the rewards in the future. And they're not wrong. There are people who study biology just to get the money or status associated with being a doctor. But there are also people who study it because they are fascinated with the elegance of the human body. They are amazed how, like a jazz troupe, all the actors work and play off each other so seamlessly to create a whole that is far greater than its parts. I won't lie, my goal is to become a doctor. And it's a long, grueling process that makes you question if you really want to continue on your seemingly mistaken path. Many people, halfway through, realize that their answer to that question is no, and some simply ignore that question and miserably focus on how incredible life will be when they finally become a doctor. But for me, I love the process. I love all learning about physiology, nutrition, biochemistry, anatomy, etc. that comes with being a premed. And frankly, if I didn't love the process, no matter how great being a doctor would be, I don't think I could motivate myself to do it. Why would I spend 10 or more years of my life miserable? So I guess the point of this response is that you're right there are people who have no love for what they're learning and do it for its security of lucrativeness, and that really is a damn shame. But I would contend that there are many people, including mathematicians, who truly find beauty in their subjects. The elegance of numbers and grids touched the core of my father just like it does many others. And so people who explore these areas wouldn't stop just because there's no money or no safety. I don't think its a byproduct of society but simply just another way to explore life. Instead of using video, or piano notes, a mathematician, or physicist, or doctor seeks to understand the incredible simplicity of complexity of life using their own language. There's a reason we consider the first scientists as early philosophers Plato and Aristotle(Aristotle, after all, was the first to propose what is now the modern atomic theory). Its because science and philosophy are really one of the same. They are hopelessly intertwined, and hence, math and science will always be around no matter its place in society or money associated with it because humans will never stop questioning the wonders of life.

Sure your body is important but...

In class, we discussed how the foremost objective of anyone aspiring to be Cool should be gaining control over their body. But I disagree with this assertion. Yes, gaining control of your body is a valuable, if not necessary, key to opening the door to cool but it should not be the primary focus. Instead, I believe the chief tool to climb the lofty walls into the garden of Cool is to first gain mastery of your mind. The problem that arises when placing the body before the brain is superficiality. Humans are incredibly adept and picking up even the subtlest cues in their surroundings, and this extends to when people judge others as well. A first impression is formed in the span of one-tenth of a second, quite literally faster than the blink of an eye. This is a relic of our past where split-second perceptions were the line between life and death. But in our modern, less life-threatening society, it means that, consciously or not, you are picking up on the idiosyncrasies of everyone you interact with. This is why people can get a feeling that someone is lying even if they have no evidence of it, or can instantly tell if others feel uncomfortable or awkward just based on small shifts of body language. And it also means that it's remarkably difficult to fake your actions. You can try to refine your movements to better tell a lie, or to put on a confident facade to cloak your insecure insides but you'll be surprised how quickly people pick up on such attempts. For example, you might take the advice of countless self-help blogs to smile more, point your toes in the direction of who you're talking too, keep your chest up, shoulders back, and a whole other slate of other supposed fixes to help with your confidence but your body will inevitably show others the self-doubt and anxiety hiding underneath. And when the sophisticatedly evolved radar of others around you register that discrepancy, they'll see you as something far worse than anything you were trying to hide: superficial. And superficiality is not on the public enemy list in just the city of Cool; it is loathed worldwide. But you never wanted to come off as superficial; you simply wanted to become Cool by instructing your body to act as if you were. And yet, by trying to control and manipulate your body to be cool even when you yet aren't, you are superficial, and society will pay you back for that mistake.

There's a socially safer, and long-term superior, approach to unlocking the gates to Cool and that is changing your internal state, that is your mind, before trying to artificially direct your body. If you can gain the experiences necessary to truly glimpse into the well of Cool or read enough as to construct your own belief system revolving around the Cool then you will be light years ahead of anyone who tries to act Cool without first understanding Cool. That's why anyone who truly desires to be happy must first reflect on how they can change their attitude or perception in life to best serve that. Like how a river on a hill will always flow downwards, your body and actions will always follow suit when your mind believes in something. You don't have to worry about the infinitesimal details of your body language because your body will exude your new paradigm naturally. Sure there are people who spend lifetimes learning how to perfectly hone their body so as to lie seamlessly, or to engineer their face to always look happy but that is a life of constant paranoia, exhausting effort, and continuous unsatisfaction. Instead, invest some time in genuinely internalizing the viewpoint or image you wish to adopt, and you'll enjoy a much more fulfilling, and frankly less superficial, life.

the-mythical-norm

In response to Varun

@varun-krishnan

Varun, this is some pretty interesting shit. I️ don’t think anyone has ever achieved being cool, and maybe that’s the point. That’s the constant struggle of being human, there’s always more cool to conquer and maybe we’ll never get there. Nietzsche wrote in Zarathustra,

“Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Overman – a rope over an abyss.”

Maybe we are just supposed to walk the rope and never actually get to the other side? Who knows. If we know how to be cool then we stop learning because we think we know. The pursuit of cool is infinite, I️ think…

Are We Just Hopeless Impostors of Cool?

Life is a mountain, and we are its skiers. There is not just one slope that leads to the bottom, but instead a host of them each with their nuances and subtleties. Someone might recklessly take to the trees while another earnestly hugs the slope. Some try to hit each jump but much more try to find the flattest ground possible. Furthermore, each trail does not lead to the same point. After their voyage down people might realize their now surrounded by wealth, whereas other people might find themselves impoverished and despised. And others still may discover nothing has changed at all. But a few will observe they've landed in a remote region, the region of Cool. How did they get there? One possibility is that they could have been heading for an entirely different destination when suddenly their skies got caught in the snow and they found themselves tumbling. Next thing they know they're body aches from the fall, and they're in a place called Cool. This is surely one of the most painful paths, a path that was forced upon them not chosen. Yet, it's also one of the fastest ways to find Cool. You don't have to painstakingly follow the signs or convince yourself to stay on the narrow slope as the broader and more entertaining runs crisscross your path. This is the unfortunate situation of the war veterans who lost their footing when they had to witness the bleakness of war or the African American whose skies caught a rock as they traversed the racist landscape of America. A direct path, true, but paid with the cost of suffering.

But this is far from the only method to reach Cool's corner of the mountain. There is the curious skier who studies the route taken by others who've made it to Cool, the skier who stops at every guidepost to see if he's on the right track. And if he makes it to the bottom of the mountain without finding Cool, he'll take the ski lift to the top and try again. This is the student of Cool who doesn't reach Cool by circumstances or even out of necessity, but instead out of patience and practice. And this is also the majority of students in our English class for we try to reach Cool by copying those who've already found it. Now we may technically reach the same area as those we study, but the question becomes are we, or any other apprentice of Cool, less cool than those who are there through unfortunate circumstances? Will someone who meticulously analyzes and mimics those who are cool ever be as cool as the people they are trying to emulate? Is the war veteran whose seen the terrors of war always cooler than those who've only read about them? Are the people who slipped and tumbled and felt the sufferings of life the truly Cool people and their followers who cautiously wind their way down the mountain to land beside them only shameless copycats? Are there levels to Cool where someone who has experienced the pain of life will always be above those who only read about others in pain? Sure the latter could try to find some agony in their life but if it can never match up will they then be forever less Cool? Through reading about Cool these last couple of weeks its hard not to feel that without undergoing some shattering trauma, willingly or not, you are only imitating those who are truly cool. And even if you do manage to expose some suffering in your own life, it will never be sufficient enough to be as Cool as those you're reading about. But I guess you may not want to be THAT cool because the shattered bones and sleepless nights they face from plunging down the mountain is not worth the relatively empty title of being called Cool...

Who has the Power?

The body of Cool seems to constantly contradict itself. One of its hands raises you, the individual, to a position of power, and yet the other hand is preoccupied with empowering others. It nudges you with one leg to pursue your personal pleasures while kicking you with the other to instead, do what will project the best image to others. If the lens of Cool is melded together from fragments that don't seem to fit together, how can one possibly hope to see a clear picture when looking through? There's no doubt that Cool stresses the importance of the individual in a godless world, and implores you to constantly be thinking, learning, and becoming yourself. It tells you to design and redesign the life YOU want to live, and then go live it. And yet, in your other ear, it whispers something else. It declares to you that you must be your best self for the sake of others. It proclaims that the purpose of being wildly attractive is to energize those around you to do the same. It says to dress and walk and smile to seem Cool to the eyes that are always watching, and the perception of those beings behind those eyes is what should guide your every move. Where did the power of the individual go? Cool seems to cruelly appetize you with a taste of power only to reveal the entrees are being served to everyone else. After all, how can you focus on leading a life you choose when Cool tells you your life is dictated by the views of other people? Is Cool simply a circle that preaches you to stop being a sheep only to make you one again? Cool is fixated on the question of who has control. Yet the answer it provides doesn't match with reality. Of course in public, it overtly hands control over to the individual, yet under the table, it is actually granting the control of the individual to others, even if the others don't know it. And hence, the notion of individualism and empowerment are hopelessly muddled when staring through the lens of cool.

High School: Good Luck Keeping Your Cool

Are you reading this because you have to or because you want to? Do you have the self-control to finish reading this paper if you wished? Or do you have the ability to rebel against reading this paper if you’re only looking at this sentence through obligation? These questions about control, rebellion, and independence are what thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche to W.E.B Du Bois implore us to answer. I don’t claim to have answered those questions; instead, I have explored them through the context of my life and the paradigm of cool. After all, in our society, the word cool is like a cellphone, people use it every day but have no idea of its inner workings. But by reflecting on the thoughts of those who have studied the word, and relating it to my own life, I can hope to unscrew the casing and at least glimpse what lies underneath.

I grew up in a high school that viewed class participation as a God, and everyone from the teachers to the students worshipped it as such. Your grade hinged on how you acted in class, and if you couldn’t speak up, you were going to be lacking a certain vowel on your transcript. Most of my peers and I were happily oblivious to our grades throughout middle school, and so class involvement was just an abstract idea floating beyond the horizon of reality. But as we walked into the jaws of high school, the pervasive stench of college applications began to affect everyone. Soon, I noticed that the classroom was a jungle of outstretched hands swaying back and forth for the teacher’s attention. People were making noise just for the sake of making noise so that subconsciously the instructor would think they were participating more. And don’t even get me started on how much “funnier” the teacher’s jokes suddenly got. I felt like I wasn’t surrounded by my friends anymore, but these alien life forms whose mission was to capture as much of the teacher’s attention as possible. The worst part is...I started turning into those unrecognizable creatures as well. I begin to tune out the material taught and instead, solely focused on what I was going to say next. I stopped refining and re-refining my thoughts in my head and instead, blurted half-baked thoughts as they spawned into my consciousness. I used to prize ideas that I contributed, but now I simply jumped from concept to concept without being committed to any of them. Perhaps worst of all, I hated all of it. I was despised and ashamed of how shallow and artificial I was, and yet I couldn’t bring myself to jump off the train because I had no idea where I’d land. Now I know, however, that I would have landed in the cool.

The rejecting of my individuality and acceptance of superficiality is profoundly uncool. Just look at Oscar Wilde who said “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation(De Profundis).” And he’s right. My classmates and I didn't love trigonometry or enjoy discussing some long-forgotten battle, but we sure acted like we did. Our thoughts sought to mirror that of our teachers and hence, we were no longer ourselves. And this hollow imitation we lived, through the lens of Oscar Wilde, was uncool. Oscar Wilde was far from the only person who recognized the importance of one’s identity. W.E.B Du Bois wrote about how his racially discriminated peers “shrunk into tasteless sycophancy(The Souls of Black Folk)” and how they failed to realize that for one “to attain his place in the world, he must be himself, and not another(The Souls of Black Folk).” Were my friends and I too not tasteless sycophants seeking to flatter our way to a better grade? I, like many of Du Bois’ audience, thought I had to slip into the skin of someone else if I was to fit into the world. But Du Bois, just like Oscar Wilde, drew from the wells of cool to preach the importance of remaining true to yourself.

I gave up another aspect of myself during my high school experience: self-control. And in the bible of cool, there’s no greater sin than relinquishing control. For example, Robert Farris Thompson in his studying of the aesthetic of the cool argues “Control, stability, and composure...seem to constitute elements of an all-embracing aesthetic attitude(An Aesthetic of the Cool).” You would see none of those traits if you walked into my high school classrooms. I learned that being composed meant being unable to contribute your thoughts amid my unconstrained peers continually trying to make sound. Our class discussions were as shifting as the tides, and new waves steadily erupted as people tried to change the topic to what fell into their minds. And hence, I lost all self-control. I could no longer prevent myself from foregoing my tendency for careful thought and instead, succumbing to the mindless chatter around me. As Thompson would say, I no longer exhibited “the intelligent withholding of speech for the purposes of higher deliberation(An Aesthetic of the Cool),” and hence, I no longer fit into the definition of cool. Nietzsche too held the same notions about control when he said: “Virtues are as dangerous as vices in so far as one lets them rule over one as authorities and laws(The Will to Power).” Nietzsche argues that, just like how authorities and laws can control you, so do virtues. Being able to involve myself in school was always taught to me by my friends, my parents, my teachers, almost everyone really, as a beneficial value I must adopt. But as the German philosopher acutely points out, virtues can exert great control over you, and if you’re not careful, it can leave you like a marionette with loose strings for anyone to seize.

I’ve spent most of my life never rebelling, and I can never hope to find even signs pointing to the highway of cool if I haven’t shown defiance. I grew up in a household that revolved around risk, specifically how best to eradicate it. My father taught us that predictability would lead to success, which, in his eyes, meant doing well in school, becoming a doctor, and safely investing your money till retirement. He wanted to ensure our financial stability as we grew older and beseeched us to follow the well-beaten route to the top without getting distracted by the side trails continuously dotting the path. And hence, when faced with the choice to either jump in the boat with my classmates to float safely to an A, or to bid farewell and strike out on my own to explore the turbid tributaries, I, of course, chose the former. But that is wholly uncool.

The authors of Cool Rules put it succinctly when they wrote “Cool is an oppositional attitude adopted by individuals or small groups to express defiance state to authority(Cool Rules).” My injected sense of caution couldn’t have led me farther from the attitude Pountain and Robins are describing. The problem with defying authority is that it is inherently risky, and you never know the consequences of such an action. The thought of disobeying my teachers scared, and still does scare, me because you’re no longer on the surest path to success. But being in a “private rebellion(Cool Rules)” is critical to the art of cool, and without it you are, as Nietzsche would say, “a herd animal, something eager to please, sickly, and mediocre(Beyond Good and Evil).” And that’s a pretty accurate way to describe my classmates and me. Herd animals that are corralled by the teacher and graze on her approval. This sentiment is furthered by Oscar Wilde’s assertion that “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made(The Soul of Man Under Socialism).” For Wilde, disobedience is an integral part of humanity that has helped us continuously propel the wheel of progress forward. In his eyes, there was no progress in our classroom, no one was pushing the teacher to be her best self by questioning her, and in turn, no one was pushing us to become better by questioning us. Everyone simply said what everyone else wanted to hear, and as Wilde predicted, neither the teacher nor the student grew as a result. And if you can’t even find a way to grow in life, how do you expect to be cool?

Too many people say that they were the coolest when they were in high school. And yet, from studying the true meaning behind the word cool, I would say they couldn’t be farther from the truth. My high school ran off with my individuality and left me with only a threadbare blanket of superficiality with which to shamefully wrap myself. And, as both W.E.B Du Bois and Oscar Wilde described, individuality is central to a person's being. Furthermore, I lost my ability to control myself and was instead forced to sing a song I despised. This loss of self-control, in the eyes of Nietzsche, bound me down just like any law or authority figure would. Thompson too valued self-control, stating that if you can’t even teach yourself how to stay quiet, you can never hope to become cool. Finally, my dad’s instruction to always color in between the lines left me passive and obedient, adjectives that, in the eyes of Cool Rule’s authors, would be noticeably absent in any cool man’s dictionary. Hence, no matter how cool I, or any of my classmates, thought we were in high school the thinkers who actually analyzed the essence of the word would only smile(well maybe not Nietzsche) and shake their heads in dissent.

Two for one is not always a bargain

Since I was young, I was acutely aware I had two ears. One for my father's words and one for my mother's words. I used those ears a lot, often at the same time, and my brain always had trouble neatly packaging those two voices into a sensible and unifying thought. That's because the music each of my parents played were often out of sync, the notes sung at different pitches, and the chorus seemingly never the same. You see, my dad was intellectual, cautious, and conservative while my mom was free-spirited, spontaneous, and liberal. Don't ask me how they got together. Either way I was the one constantly trying to figure out how to grasp their two contradictory opinions, and usually, I failed. It was annoying and tiresome, and frankly, I regularly wished things were more straightforward. But now I know that those experiences were lemons given to me by life, I just didn't yet know how to squeeze them into lemonade.

W.E.B Du Bois wrote in his book The Souls of Black Folk that being black is a constant sense of having "two warring ideals" within you, and a desire to merge your "double self into a better and truer self." He argues that this sense of a double purpose is weakening, and that trying to "satisfy two unreconciled ideals" results in only more pain. In this way, my upbringing parallels Du Bois lamentations as I constantly tried to follow the thinkings of both my role models, but was only left frustrated when I realized the impossibility of the task. Du Bois preaches that striving to fulfill each principle is fruitless, instead "all [the] ideals must be melted and welded into one." It was my gradual understanding of this fact that transformed my childhood from a tiresome experience into a rewarding one. Du Bois' grasped the notion that his culture shouldn't try to be African or American but instead the best of both. Similarly, I gradually learned that one shouldn't be like both of their parents; instead, one should be the best of both of their parents. Hence, I have to thank my parents after all since, purposefully or not, they helped me find at least one fragment of cool's lens that I can carry around with me wherever I go.

You are narcissistic..but it’s okay

Is every action we perform selfish? When was the last time you did something that didn't benefit you? The answer could very well be never. The concept of altruism, essentially the idea of selflessness, is merely that: a concept. A concept that has yet to descend from the abstract world and attach itself to reality. This impossibility of pure selflessness is nothing to be ashamed of; it's our ancestor's fault if anything. Those humans that ensured every move in some way helped them to survive were the ones that lived long enough to reproduce. And what of the humans that had a more noble and charitable bend, perhaps sharing their food or sacrificing their life for a loved one? Well...they're not our ancestors. This is true for every living thing from a lion to a ladybug. The simple truth is being self-centered meant survival, and that predisposition is as part of us as our fingers and toes. Now the hands of time have certainly molded our modern society into a wholly dissimilar shape than those of our ancestors, but evolution is an incredibly slow process. Hence, these egocentric traits are ingrained in us even if they're no longer necessary in our present-day environment. One might argue against this actuality, pointing to figures such as Gandhi or Mother Teresa for examples of true altruism. But while Gandhi did indeed fight for the independence of millions, the independence was also for himself, a no less inspirational, but still somewhat self-serving, deed. The same argument can be extended to Mother Teresa, while also an uplifting character, ultimately self-seeking in her desire to be the best Christain possible by spreading the religion's values.

What does this have to do with cool? In class, we talked about the three main characteristics of cool: hedonism, ironic detachment, and narcissism. And that last one is what left a funny taste in my mouth. This aspect of cool, at first, seems odd and potentially out of place. But in context of the previous paragraph, its purpose can be explained. As stated, narcissism is evolutionary baggage that everyone carries around, whether they like it or not. Sure some bring it in only a backpack, while others lug it around in multiple suitcases, but the fact remains that it is a passenger with everyone. The problem arises when people try to hide that truth, walking around like they are immune to the inflection that is egotism. Cool revolves around self-awareness and self-mastery with one of the most damaging sins being lying to yourself. Hence, it is actually unsurprising that cool seeks to draw out narcissism from the shadows and place it on the stage for the entire world to behold. In cool's eyes, what you attempt to hide from will only end up having power over you. Just look at cool's flirtatious relationship with death to see how it diffuses the power over an entity by embracing it. As we talked in class, acknowledgment is the first step in cool, and therefore, cool seeks to control narcissism by acknowledging its presence and then relinquishing itself to its clasp. Hence, the focus on narcissism is not an inconsistency or even an oddity because it only furthers cool's narrative of mastering even the most uncomfortable truths of the human condition.

Is everyone cool?

Is someone cool if others don't perceive them as cool? Is cool just a social construct or does it represent tangible traits that someone possesses? And suppose cool is merely a societal impression, then who in society determines what's cool? For example, in class we mercilessly attack the wholly uncool nature of frat boys but are they really that lame? I'm sure that frat boys consider their fraternity, and the members in it, cool. And hence, if cool really is just a name we slap onto people's judgement of others then we must say that frat boys are cool simply because there's a large population of other frat boys that view each other as cool. But this definition of cool is like an antibiotic, the more it's utilized the less useful it becomes. For instance, my mom think I'm cool and therefore, does that make me cool? Or does a critical mass need to be reach before it can be definitively said if one is cool? Was Hitler cool then just because plenty of people thought he was? The problem with deconstructing cool into an image of human perception is that, with that image, almost everyone could be considered cool. And if everyone is cool no one is cool. It's impossibly easy for people who you are close to, people in your inner circle, to say that you're cool. I mean if you're friends didn't think you were cool why would they still be around? Hence, like any effective antibiotic, we must modify the ingredients of our meaning of cool to better combat this problem.

When we examine the cool, we must lower the magnifying glass from our eyes and instead, broaden our field of view as to better grasp the entire picture. If cool is indeed a social construct, a perception from others, then the others can't purel be people close to the object of interest but instead, must be people that come from a diverse set of groups, backgrounds, and experiences. All of Joe's fraternity bros think he's cool, but only if people beyond the world he belongs to—from the nerds to the jocks, the artists to the stoners, and everyone else in between—only if they also find him cool can he truly achieve coolness. It's this ability to draw the eyes of those outside of your bubble, and the ability to hold their attention that allows you to step through the doors of coolness. Just look at powerful white men who, for centuries, no doubt held themselves, and each other, as cool, all the while enslaving blacks and tyrannizing other minorities. But were they cool? The answer is a resounding no, because the blacks they were oppressing, or the minorities they were persecuting, were never even close to thinking anyone white and in power was remotely cool. But what allowed the blacks, and other minorities, to start donning the coat of coolness after the chains around them were gradually loosened? It was the fact that everyone outside of their race, everyone outside of their social class, everyone outside of their faction, began seeing them as cool. And hence, they became such.

Oscar Wilde and Yogi Berra would be great friends

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” This quote speaks volumes about our identity as it highlights how humans are constantly lying to each other when they feel unprotected. And who can blame them? We have always used dishonesty as armor against threats to our safety as sometimes the best way to survive is to not tell the truth. If you don’t believe me, just ask Galileo. Most people nowadays, however, are not threatened by life and death scenarios by speaking the truth, and yet, still we sometimes hesitate from being sincere. Why? Because most of us are afraid to fall off the unsteady social ladder we’ve been climbing our entire lives and expressing unpopular thoughts, no matter how accurate, is a one-way ticket of getting pushed off. Yet, we desperately want to speak our minds, to say what we believe is true, to give the thoughts bouncing in our head some room to breath. And, for many, with the advent of the internet, this has turned from a fantasy to a reality. The ability to create an anonymous account and channel your deepest, most profound sentiments onto a stage for all of humanity to see is like a dream come true. The internet is a mask, and as Oscar Wilde contends, with a mask travels the truth. But no one said the truth was going to be pretty. Racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and every other -ism is nowhere near as abundant than on the internet. Is this the truth Oscar Wilde was talking about? Are the people on the internet the most human humans? They have the mask after all, why would they be lying? And if so what does that indicate of humanity, and the truth we are hiding?

Maybe this is what Oscar Wilde meant when he said: “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” It’s nice to think that the truth people refrain from speaking is an exciting new model of the universe where the earth revolves around the sun. If you really are more of yourself with a mask, then maybe you’re not putting on a mask but taking one off. Shakespeare once said, “All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players.” Perhaps we already wear a mask, a mask that stays on when we talk to our friends in the hallway or raise our hands to speak in class, a mask that only ever truly comes off when we’re alone. And sometimes we still refuse to take it off because we’re scared we won’t recognize what’s underneath.

“Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.” It’s funny how obedience is placed on such a high pedestal throughout our education while disobedience is taught to be a poison that would kill us if we get too close. Don’t get me wrong; there’s a place for obedience within us, a nice, well-defined corner of our mind where it can draw, read, take a nap, whatever for as long as it wants. But there’s also a place for disobedience, a corner of our mind we can call upon when we're fed up with the status quo. Without disobedience, the norm would never be broken, and we would be living out a reality where we follow what was normal 500 years ago. After all, contrary to what we’re preached in school, authority figures can be wrong. That person in the white coat could be giving you a drug that kills you, the guy with a police badge could despise due process, and that man with a mustache telling you to hail him could have fucked up views on humanity. Just because they’re in power doesn’t mean they’re right. And, as obedience teaches you to kneel to authority, disobedience allows society to rise up against those they disagree with. And without that possibility, a community could get stuck in an infinite loop of obedience to an authority figure that slowly cripples their society(did I hear North Korea?). Hence, disobedience is a reset button that can discard the ineffective rulers and impose new ones that can move the population forward.

Who was Friedrich Nietzsche?

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher who sought to explore the crisis of religious faith washing over Europe near the end of the 19th century. He preached the death of God and how God’s passing gave way to freedom and choice for man. His writings continue to touch us today, as moral and intellectual certainties that were once considered perfect are now practiced much more loosely and scrutinized much more significantly thanks to the effect of Nietzsche's work. Where once there was a definitive answer to what is Good and Evil, in modern society the answer is continually shifting and evolving with us. Nietzsche's book Beyond Good and Evil was critical to the establishment of this way of life, and many more ideologies which we now take for granted. His philosophy, though usually painted with pessimistic colors, does have bright spots of positivity. His belief that people have the ability to think for themselves and can take life into their own hands is, at its core, a liberating view. Yet, Nietzsche also knew that proclaiming God as extinct meant opening up a hole in humanity that he felt as his duty to close up. Hence, he sought to construct new morals for a post-divine society, a task as ambitious as it was impossible. That impossibility no doubt weighed on him, and its unsure if the difficulty of such a tremendous responsibility, or simply his host of physical ailments, is what drove him to insanity and eventually a premature death at the age of 44. To truly understand how Nietzsche arrived at that point, however, we must travel back to his childhood.

Nietzsche's father was a priest, a religious figure that as a young boy he looked up to and admired. When the future philosopher was only five years old his father, as well as his baby brother, died. The torment his dad suffered as he wrestled with brain illness for the final year of his life lead Nietzsche to question Christianity and how God could allow such a faithful man to suffer so greatly. These feelings of doubt over religion only intensified throughout his life. Despite his hesitations about God he still sought to become a priest like his father, even trying to get a degree in theology. But suddenly, he changed his mind and decided to study classical philology, citing his reason as wanting to find the truth instead of settling for the superficial peace and happiness in religion. Later in life, he attacks even the idea of God claiming that we have killed God, that we are murderers, and that God is dead.

Nietzsche desperately sought something to succeed Christianity and to make sense of human suffering that now seemed incomprehensible. He turned to teachings of a German atheist who believed that the human experience was inherently unpleasant and the best we can do is seek momentary respite from its misery. Nietzsche could relate to this, after all, he was born with severe myopia and continuously battled illness as a child. Furthermore, he contracted a host of diseases by the age of 30 and was even a partial invalid. He questioned the meaning of the hardship and difficulty and began to develop his own philosophy as to better shield himself from the sharp arrows of life. He previously relied on art and music as to transcend his pain but he could no longer rely on such means and instead, strived to obtain what he called “the will to power.” The distressed German began to realize that one could draw strength from the well of self-mastery and self-knowledge, especially by understanding the physiological principles that govern the human body. In this way, Nietzsche began to realize how interconnected our physical and psychological nature was with the way we think and began to preach the importance of self-making as a way of therapy. These concepts were outlined in his book Human, All too Human which used both psychology and philosophy to persuade the reader that individualism is the string with which to tie together all of your life experiences and find your true purpose. Hence, Nietzsche began to blaze a trail that was uniquely his, tossing off the chains that tied him to past thinkers and freeing himself to think as differently as he desired. To the sickly philosopher, free-thinking was bold and centered on the idea of constant questioning, a mindset that was liberating as well as...isolating.

Nietzsche felt the cold winds of isolation, as his novel viewpoints were controversial and effectively cut him off from his other thinkers. Yet, to him, solitude was an unfortunate side effect of philosophy, as philosophy meant exploring areas that have been uncharted even if that resulted in abandoning the life you once knew. Throughout his studies, Nietzsche began to wonder how humans could transcend themselves and overcome their own limitations. He answered this question by proposing the notion of the Overman or Übermensch which described the idea of humankind seeking a new path without no God and therefore, total freedom. Furthermore, Nietzsche began to imagine all we know as lying beyond the point of Good and Evil, as nothing fit into the superficial abstractions we developed of these two principles.

Like a child clutching onto their teddy bear for comfort, Nietzsche likewise desperately clutched onto philosophy to comfort himself against a life riddled with sorrow and solitude. As the chimes of time grew more deafening in his ear, Nietzsche sought to define the morality for future mankind, a project he titled The Transvaluation of All Values which reflects his idea that we must shed the old skin of Christian values and instead, don a new cloak of redefined ideals. One could say Nietzsche began to see himself as a Christ figure who must burden the weight of man’s sufferings as well as provide them a path to follow. Oddly enough, however, this line of reasoning was consistent with his philosophy that every man should be a God unto himself. But still, this task of rewriting mankind’s paradigm was impossible for even as great of a man like himself, and, combined with his illnesses, Nietzsche spiraled into insanity. In this way, Nietzsche followed his teachings to his deathbed as he believed that the greatest philosopher is one who sacrificed their life to discover the truth.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Intentionally Untitled