quo.ti.di.an

people, books, and others

I have just finished reading The Book of Other People, which is a collection of short stories written by twenty-three fresh authors and edited by Zadie Smith.  This made for entertaining and thought-provoking reading as I made my morning commute, and I can think of nothing more different than Tolstoy’s War and Peace, which tired me.  My only complaint with the collection concerns the redundancy of the characters.  After reading a couple of stories, each author took one of two approaches.  The character was either eccentric, or there was a character so simplistic, so monotonous that it commented more on the general “people” and less on a specific person.  Admittedly, there are some authors who chose to blend those two approaches.  In all cases, however, there is the obvious theme that a “person” is never free-standing unit, but rather the product of its supporting cast.

The term “people” is used very loosely in this book, as exemplified by the presence of a giant, a puppy, and a monster, and if I were feeling contentious, I’d argue that when taken as a whole, this anthology suggests that technological and entertainment cultures reveal the beastly and monstrous nature of people.  All the pieces are there.  A menopausal woman who gives in to internet dating only to have her date fake his death.  One man avoids discussing his failing marriage with his wife by going to the cinema.  Another woman sits next to a celebrity while flying, and even though the celebrity gives her his number.  Despite their connection, she is too infatuated with him as a celebrity and never brings herself to call him.  The stories about non-human “people” remind us that what makes us human is the presence of emotion, which can be reconciled with our beastly characteristics.  In one story, there is a giant who wants someone to love so much that he falls in love with a mountain, hoping that one day the mountain will hatch into a female giant.  Another story depicts a puppy, or rather the idea of families owning a puppy, and inks two socio-economically different families and suggests that mothers have the same instinctual qualities.  The only difference is that not everyone has the same means by which to raise the family.  Despite its representation of the negative qualities of people, the work as a whole adopts a very optimistic view of “people.”

After reading these short stories and feeling that they simultaneously highlight the monotony of life and show the unattractive qualities of people, I have indulged in my narcissism and wondered what a short story about me would be like.  I have decided that I fall mostly in the category of a monotonous person, and a story about me would have more to say about people in general than me.  My days are monotonous; my weeks are repetitive.  I go to work and do whatever—oftentimes trite—task is asked of me.  Yesterday, an attorney told me I was a very good redactor.  That means I am very good at using a ruler and black marker to cross out unneeded information on telephone records—I still believe that if you’re doing something, you should do it well.  I go home, eat, go to sleep. I’d me amiss (and depressed) if I believed that my life was completely monotonous. Cooking brings a world of delicious mystery; reading introduces me to new people; and thinking allows me to find new ideas within myself.

elle woods meets aristotle

I work at a law firm, and some might believe that I’m working there as a means by which to bolster future graduate school applications.  That is not true; I am working there because I need to eat. Granted, it’s not the most impressive job, and I don’t do the most intellectual tasks while I’m at work, I think there is some practicality to working after graduation.  After all, not everyone has the luxury of opting for numerous unpaid internships that bolster future graduate school applications.  Even so, I think it’s   There is some practicality to having a job upon graduation; depending on multiple factors—including socioeconomic background—not everyone can opt to take unpaid, yet very cool and “noble,” internships.  It’s unlikely that having this job on my résumé will help me get into school, but that is not a reason not to treat this as a learning experience.  It has introduced me to the absurdity of law firm economics and fully shows that Mandevillean principles are very much alive today.  Just as the affluent person hires a cleaning service, the powerful attorney hires a secretary (who is oftentimes nicer and more knowledgeable than the attorney) who allows him to perform his or her job.

My interests lie in examining the multiple intersections between reason, emotion, and morality; fortunately, the practice of law—like many things—is tangentially related to all three of these mental faculties.  Aristotle wrote that “the law is reason, free from passion.”  Perhaps that is what law is intended to be, but that is not how it is carried out.  Like Elle Woods, I think Aristotle’s aphorism is false.  The difference is that her interpretation is more optimistic and takes the form of an unnaturally short commencement speech.  A lawyer uses reason to practice law, and in some cases, manipulates the law so that it aligns with his or her conception of reason.  To say that the law is purely reason is a farce.  In addition to acting “reasonably,” there are lawyers who aim to uphold a certain lifestyle and achieve happiness through the practice of law, thus showing how emotion comes into play.  In some cases, attorneys are more concerned with making money for the firm than upholding any moral standard, and as a result they take on cases that reaffirm the negative lawyer stereotype.  The beauty of it all, however, is that people—including lawyers—operate as result of a nexus created by reason, emotion, and morality.  In effect, there should not be a simplistic way to classify all lawyers. That being said, both history and popular culture would have you believe that all lawyers are nefarious.

invisible man

Two very important things have happened since I last posted: I quit reading War and Peace and became gainfully employed.  I can’t help but wonder if those two events are inherently related.  People talk about some mythical place after college called the real world, and apparently, this real world is more difficult than the imaginary world known as college.  So I’ve transitioned from both imaginary worlds—fiction and college—to a real world.  The good thing is that I am living some deranged version of Smith’s Wealth of Nations.  The problem, however, is that I relate better to the imaginary people in literature, as opposed to real people.

There is one major difference between this “real world” and the imaginary college world.  I’m still under the illusion that I have freedom to think whatever I want, but I must always worry about who will see my ideas.  While at school there were multiple outlets to anonymously and unanonymously write things—not that I ever made use of those.  Nonetheless, they were there.  Now I feel like Big Brother is standing over me.  Perhaps that’s because at work, every e-mail sent from the company e-mails are stored on a large database.  I will continue to develop ideas, even though I don’t need to articulate contentious thesis statements, because ideas are the quintessential element of humans.

the mind-body divide

I would prefer to watch the Olympics without the constant references to Michael Phelps.  There are several thousand other athletes competing in the Olympics, and many of them interview a lot better than he does.

At this point, it is indisputable that Michael Phelps is consistently the fastest swimmer at the Olympics, and it’s even become a little boring to watch him race.  I respect that he works so hard at swimming, but I think the way the media and public have been fetishizing him is disgusting.  I especially had a problem when NBC claimed that Phelps was the fastest AND hardest working swimmer.  Since NBC has neither been to all of Phelps’ practices nor performed any sort of physiological testing that shows how hard his body is working, I don’t think they should make such a strong claim.  Then again, I could have just missed the memo that those who are the best at something inherently work the hardest.

Everyone is watching the Olympics, and NBC boasts each day about how many viewers it had the previous night.  I’m guilty too; I have been watching the games.  However, what I don’t understand is why we applaud those who physically succeed, yet that same sense of appreciation is not given to those who have exhibited intellectual success.  Just as there is an economic market for athletes in the public eye, there is an economic market for public intellectuals.  However, we admire athletes, and to a much lesser extent, we appreciate public intellectuals; I seriously doubt any intellectual is making as much money as Phelps is making this year.  It seems almost primitive to value the physical exponentially more than the mental, even though we still operate on that basic assumption that our ability to reason separates us from beasts.

I assume that there comes a point in life when it is useless to take any more classes; some might even argue that a liberal arts degree is entirely useless.  Does it make any earthly difference whether one understands the philosophical and scientific underpinnings of Goethe’s writings?  Perhaps not.  I recognize that is a selfish enterprise to become well-versed in esotericism.  That being said, I think it is just as pointless and meaningless to be a phenomenal athlete as it is to know about love in the twelfth century or to read Don Quixote.

comment away

At least two people have mentioned a need for comments on this page.  Thanks to google and disqus, I have figured out a way to enable them.

anatomy of (an applicant’s) melancholy

Why is it so difficult to gain acceptance into a prestigious professional school?  One might go mad in an attempt to cultivate the perfect application.  Elite professional schools fetishize renaissance (wo)men.  They want the next Galileo, Cervantes, Fielding, Obama.  There is some amount of glamour and intellectual status (obviously) associated with attaining advanced degrees, but the application process is out of control.  It is unlikely to be accepted at Harvard Medical School even if you have had a successful career in the sciences.  Similarly, an impeccable undergraduate record coupled with nearly perfect LSAT scores only indicates that Yale Law School will continue to read your application; it is not a clear indicator as to whether or not one will be accepted.  However, these schools don’t want individuals to excel at only one thing.  In short, a successful applicant will be well-learned and have done something as notable as painting the Sistine Chapel—but not that because that has already been done—and have the promise of becoming a superstar in his or her chosen field.  Despite scientific and technological advances altering and expanding the curriculum at some prestigious professional schools, the problems with admissions strategies are strikingly similar to earlier times.

In Europe during the sixteenth century, there were three paths that individuals could take upon completing their time at the university: doctor, lawyer, or theologian.  It should be no surprise that the majority of people educated during this time were very wealthy, aristocratic families.  Unfortunately, that tradition has remained.  The amount of money it costs to gain acceptance to prestigious schools is outrageous!  There are some costs that cannot be avoided, such as paying to take the standardized test required for admission and the cost of applications.  In some instances, because there is no surefire way of gaining acceptance at any school, that amounts to several thousand dollars.  But what about the $2000 course Kaplan offers to better one’s standardized test scores?  Additionally, it is necessary to add the costs of attending a private high school (or the property taxes paid to attend a good public school) and a prestigious undergraduate institution.  I won’t bother to enumerate the costs of raising a child, but they are there.  Sure, there are test cases that show that some people have been accepted despite being economically disadvantaged, but I seriously doubt whether that number is even close to the people that have been advantaged.

I assume I’m not alone when I admit that it would be great to be accepted to one of the professional schools of my dream schools; it is the ultimate source of validation.  This leaves me baffled by two questions that I have used to guide my list of reasons I will use to console myself after being rejected from schools. Is the education at the nation’s school inherently better than at other schools?  Reason tells us that it is ok if we don’t attend these schools, but why are we still so heartbroken when we are rejected?

war and peace; brooklyn and manhattan

Machiavellian and Hegelian theories put forth the idea that war and peace are mutually dependent.  Theoretically, both war and peace are essential in maintaining a properly functioning democracy.  They are two sides of the same coin—that coin being democracy—and with good reason, they carry different connotations.

We had our apartment-warming party in Brooklyn last night.  It was fun, but I’m still struck by how many people fail to recognize Brooklyn as part of New York City.  In fact some people had to “leave the city” to see us.  Last time I checked, Brooklyn is part of “the city.”  The point is that just as democracy is dependent upon both war and peace, New York City is dependent upon all five burroughs that comprise it; it would be best if New York City were thought of as a five-sided three-dimensional figure (since there isn’t a five-sided coin) with each of the five burroughs represents one of the five sides.  Although I wouldn’t imagine the five burroughs to be perceived as differently as war and peace, but I recognize that each burrough carries a different connotation.  

According to the US Census, as lifted from Wikipedia, the population of Manhattan in 2007 was 1.6 million whereas the population of Brooklyn was 2.5 million.  I understand that Manhattan has is a corporate and cultural mecca, but people are also essential to the life and spirit of a city.  Not only does Brooklyn have one million more people than Manhattan, but it also has Blue Marble Ice Cream, which is delightful ice cream and coffee shop in Prospect Heights that fills its customers with yummy happiness.  I challenge anyone to find a better ice cream shop in Manhattan.

I’m really baffled at the Manhattan snobbery propagated by past Wesleyan students, not because there is a need to be politically correct, but because they spent their undergraduate careers in Middletown, Connecticut.  And now they have beef with Brooklyn?!  Gedovahyaself!