I again have the urge to write something. But before I do – thanks for all the comments/ responses to my last post, it is so awesome to get different ideas and perspectives on things. Seriously – feel free to comment, argue, or assure anything I jot down in this blog.
This time there is a whole blur of thoughts that I want to connect together – I’ve had quite a few “OMG” moments in the past weeks. In no way can I go into detail about all of them nor do I attempt to fully cover any of the issues I discuss, but perhaps I am able to highlight a few points that really altered something in my thinking.
I will start with the last thought I shared in my previous post – and that has to do with change. Is there any reason to look or hope for any solid change to occur in the world, primarily in the political domain? As I very briefly and generally walked through a few different ways to look at world affairs, whether the neorealist, neoliberal or a totally new concept for me – constructivism, I ended up stating that the possibility of an alternative reality to the current cold calculations may actually depend on perception. Or in other words - if the relations between states are primarily linked to social structures, then identities and ideas matter.
Again, I think the ideas constructivism projects are somewhat insane, but in my eyes, they also carry quite a large amount of truth - especially if I put it in context with the word of God, which I believe to be the absolute basis of life.
With regards to theories in general – I am not really prone to completely agree with any of them. And this not because I think I know better, but just as much as I have read about them - there are points in each that I comply with, yet each in some way carries something that I don’t think either projects reality or offers nothing solid to act upon (instead of criticizing just for the sake of criticism).
Actually, I love the existence of the debate. Something that I have really learned to do and enjoy this year is “try” different views on life. Just for the sake of understanding why people think the way they do. This practice is not nearly as irrational as I used to think it is. No, I don’t believe in relativism, nor do I think that everyone is right (yes there is a right and a wrong), but I have come to have some new crazy thoughts. For example I no longer think God prefers one logic to another – I don’t think western Christianity holds a monopoly of “the way”. In essence – I believe there is one truth, but I don’t think it is a simple one, or to better express – it is not in terms of black and white, and it doesn’t give any human being superiority over another. I think in Gods design, in many areas – there is a purposefully left niche for interpretation. A dangerous road, I know. One you can literally get lost in (and which I have wandered down way too many times) … but I think it is even more unintelligent is to think that one group of human beings is somehow superior or smarter than everyone else or that God is only the God of Christians and doesn’t pay attention to the rest of humanity. That, in my eyes, is a very small God to serve. Yes, my God has a name, He has a face which no living being has seen, but He also has wisdom beyond anything I can comprehend. And this wisdom is not subject to my logic.
Stepping out of your box and giving something else chance is awesome, even if at times absurd.
It is crazy how much depends on interpretation, how much perception can change an event. And I think it is important, because in a way, I would say perception gives motive for further action or inaction. In fact, I think the latter – inaction or passivity – causes way more problems on the planet than actually doing something. The majority of people in the society can’t be bothered or are afraid to think or do anything, thus allowing way too much to be done by some minorities.
For years and years I have heard discussions and debates about the failures of democracy due to corruption. And for the most part, I completely agree with this statement – democracy is often a smart way to make people believe they have power which in practice – they don´t. By cunning words, masses are deceived and by hearing what they want to hear, they are subconsciously (or in some cases consciously) directed to follow the rules of someone else. There are yet some who see through this and they raise their voices against using groups for personal gain. Yet the problem is that often, the opposition to this is silent. It happens within homes, behind peoples’ backs, as further bitterness fills the souls of men who could perhaps make a difference.
I realize I sound as naive as I don´t know, say Woodrow Wilson talking about collective security and universal norms or even better, Miss Universe promoting world peace. And let me just say – I do not intend to simplify issues that are in reality very complicated. Even if in theory, I could convince you, the practice of any solution is always more difficult.
I do not propose a public fight against authority or anarchy or anything of the sort – that would be indeed naive and thoughtless, especially in a system that itself gives birth to more corruption. But I am trying to claim that there is another side to the coin – criticizing in secret is not enough. Knowing there is something wrong is not an excuse for passivity. Because the truth is that as much as the system is corrupt, it is full of loopholes to actually stand for something that is right, and even if for a small number of people – life could be different. I don’t think systems are easily (or maybe ever) changed nor should they be blindly battled against, but I do believe people are worth fighting for.
So when talking about change, I think the first step anywhere is a war that needs to be declared against passivity.
One of my greatest discoveries last year was that politics is not actually difficult to comprehend. Yeah, situations are multifaceted and ambivalent, and I have yet to meet a person who can keep up with everything, but if you take the time to read and get into it, even in a small amount – it is not hard to figure out. The confusion is more related to prejudice and appearance. Politics is seen as a science too intellectually demanding for the majority and thus even small everyday issues are left to the hands of “someone else”. I don’t mean to state that everyone should become politicians or that a crowd can rule a country, but I also think there is so much false opinion that actually sustains corruption. For example, if you go to the country side in Estonia and talk to people about politics (which I sometimes do), most will tell you “Oh no, I’m not really into that, let the “big guys” handle it.” If you continue the discussion, sooner or later you will hear that people are not content with the way life is run, they even have ideas about how it could be different – yet they think they are not smart enough to say anything. Yes, I admit, often times – the ideas from locals are not coherent with all the political theories out there – but that doesn’t mean they should lack an opinion about issues concerning their community, especially in such a small country as Estonia. We allow way too much to happen because of false prejudice that comes from flawed perception. For 700 years, we’ve been taught we are slaves and should not really say anything – hence the silence and passed opportunities in times where we should make a stand. Schools don’t teach you to argue, or to question, but to obey.
So what do we do? We stay silent. We get out of the game and wait for it to finish so then perhaps we´ll end up on the more profitable side.
My claim of the day, with which I end this post, is this: Nobody else can live your life or use your voice to ask questions or take stands that only you can take. Silence exists because you don´t speak.
10/08/2009
9/18/2009
Let´s start again.
I think it´s been like 12 months since i last had the urge to start writing a blog of some sort. But I have been thinking about it so much lately.
Because I think God is teaching me really profound things, that really really are worth sharing.
I cannot make any comments about the continuity of this sudden phase of typing-interest, so it is better i don´t make any promises, apart from one - I will write whenever I feel like doing it. And you are indeed welcome to read whenever you feel like it.
Also I can´t promise what I write is logical - don´t expect any coherency. I will jot down things the way they are inside of me.. and i can´t really be bothered keeping a clear trace of what is written - at times it will be random, be sure of it.
This blog will be different than any other I´ve written before. Instead of keeping "the audience" (if there is one) up to date with my personal life, although no doubt you will find elements of it in the text, I will fill these pages with the passion and inspiration I get from what I think God is doing in the world. And in me.
I want to write about politics, about society, about philosophy, about music.. about humanity. And whatever else seems to be having an effect on my heart.
Because I believe God is not boxed in churches or in our personal beliefs. He doesn´t just exist somewhere.
My claim this year is that God is not invisible - watch me prove it.
I think He is "out there". Way, WAY out there. He is walking about this planet. He meets people every day. People who are not Christians. People without titles or names.
He is in politics, He is in music, He is in relationships.
And I think for the most part - we just ignore Him. Alright, I´ll give some credit - we talk about Him. But can we really see Him?
I would like to say I fully can, but it is not always so. Not every day, but when I do turn to look, I can. And you know what? He is amazing. Different to anything I would´ve imagined. If someone would have told me what I will encounter a few years ago, I would have most probably labeled them a heretic and left it there.
Now.. I think I have taken the crazy one´s place.
So let´s get into the first topic that´s been haunting me this week, shall we?
I am in my second year in university studying international relations (no, i don´t know what i will become), which means a lot of different classes on political theory, philosophy, religion, culture, security issues - anything and everything you can think of that influences the way different states interact in this world.
So right now I am going through a time where I question why things are the way they are in the world and is there any possibility they could be different.
I have to admit, I have entered these studies as a complete air-head. Meaning that I have had prejudice and pride (haha) when being introduced to different issues; most of this cockiness has been tied to my faith, by the way. It´s a whole different topic, but i´ll just mention it so you know what i have in mind - you (Christians) know how sometimes you get so concerned about being "a light" that you forget that you can´t really illuminate yourself and that the call you got from Jesus doesn´t mean that you are superior (smarter, better or more beautiful) to others? Can you feel the sense of pride in there? Yeah. There you go.
It has taken me a whole year to understand that I´m actually in school so I can learn to think differently. I actually have to open my mind and my heart and allow God to weigh these things inside of me. I haven´t "gotten it" just by birth, not even my second one!
As I have begun moving towards shutting up and listening, I have found absolutely astonishing turnarounds in my perceptions of how life works. It is so awesome! And not in ANY way does this contradict my relationship with God, but actually it shows a completely new picture of Him to me.
My "Heureka-moments" are many.
Tonight, I will give you one:
So we had a discussion in International Security studies this week about realism/ neorealism vs liberalism/neoliberalism and which of these would be a solid perception of how the world works. Those of you who don´t know, go google to get a proper intro so you can argue with me :), but they are pretty much two different views on how international relations work in the world.
Realism is based on the basic claim about human nature by Thomas Hobbes ("Leviathan")- everybody is at war with everybody - which basicly means that human nature is essentially selfish and evil and life is a power-struggle. There is no trust, no cooperation (unless there are selfish reasons); the main goal in life is security and looking out for your own skin - because everyone is at war with everyone. Also importantly - for realists, reality doesn´t change. This is our nature, we will always be at war.
In terms of states - their assumption is that the rules are the same. According to John Mearsheimer, realism in international relations makes 5 assumptions:
1. The international system is anarchic - meaning there is no supreme power to govern the relations of states, it is a power struggle.
2. States inherently possess some offensive military capability, with which they
can hurt and possibly destroy each other
3. States can never be certain about the intentions of other states.
4. The most basic motive driving states is survival.
5. States think strategically about how to survive in the international system
(they are instrumentally rational)
Liberalism on the other hand perceives human nature as being characterized by reason and tolerance. According to John Locke, considered one of the founders, human nature allows men to be selfish, this is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state however all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions". Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances.
Liberalism places the highest value on freedom of the individual. The first consequence of freedom is change.
Concerning international relations, while not denying the anarchic nature of the international system, neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated. The argument is focused on the neorealists' underestimation of "the varieties of cooperative behavior possible within... a decentralized system."
Both theories, however, consider the state and its interests as the central subject of analysis; Neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are.
Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can emerge through the building of norms, regimes and institutions.
Of course this is a debate that would just last forever and i really will not get into it, but I will just share, what I think God opened my eyes to.
For the most part, I have been a sure realist. Not in its classical sense - agreeing with Hobbes´ completely, but a lot of it, yes, I have found truthful. In terms of interaction between states - history is so full of blood and full of proof of selfish interests. It has been a power struggle, millions have died because of it. And human nature, in my view, because of our separation from GOD, really is corrupt. Even our goodness isn´t really goodness - there is usually a selfish motive behind it. I have been thoroughly disappointed in humanity. Naturally, seeing all the injustice in the world I transferred this disappointment to a bigger scale.
And in this grim world, reading the claims of guys like Woodrow Wilson or whichever idealists - i have found it ABSURD and NAIVE.
Thus, learning about politics has been really interesting, but rather depressing - because it is full of this nature.
But an important point was struck at me during our lecture, when we started discussing a theory called constructivism.
This is an absolutely amazing one, because it completely agrees with realism, but it states that it´s true not because of human nature, but because it is socially constructed - meaning because we practice it.
Power-politics exists because because states practice it. But it could be different.
To them, the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces. How we perceive the world matters, because it determines how we behave in it.
This thought is INSANE! But it struck me to my face that yeah it is easy to criticize everything and i still value talking about life the way it is. But in essence, i think the greatest problem with realism is that it is passive. If you´re a realist, you don´thave to change or even think about change. It is in itself an excuse to stay the way you are - in selfishness, if you will.
And so I started thinking about things - do things have to be unjust? Or the fact that they are - does it mean they have to stay this way? Maybe it really could be different?
And i think this idea is actually profoundly biblical - because i think God has hope in us and actually works through and with us. I am in no way denying all that is happening in the world nor the fallen state of our nature. And in the power of Jesus Christ - we are a new being. But here´s what i have come to think also - the whole idea of "the power of Christ" for me used to mean that people have to say a prayer and meet Jesus, then they can start doing justice.
I no longer think that is entirely true. Because I believe that anyone on this planet has the power to reach out to someone, love someone. And I believe Jesus can meet people "on the field", when they do acts like his. I think he can actually change people on the spot in doing so. Because unless a person climbs out of his cynical way of being, where is the point in telling him the truth? Or also, I have found that words have to backed by actions to have meaning - the same with spreading the gospel - people listen when they are surprised or shocked by your way of being, or actions, whatever - not because you said something awesome.
So you have to get out of your shoes and challenge them to get out of theirs (I mean really, truthfully), and both come back with a different look in their eyes. And that look is a work of God. You have met with Him, whether you can name it or not.
My heretical claim is the following - God meets with anyone willing to get out of their shoes.
In essence, in both big things and small things, yeah reality is reality.. but i have to believe that things can change, at least to some extent. Because God is "out there".
Because I think God is teaching me really profound things, that really really are worth sharing.
I cannot make any comments about the continuity of this sudden phase of typing-interest, so it is better i don´t make any promises, apart from one - I will write whenever I feel like doing it. And you are indeed welcome to read whenever you feel like it.
Also I can´t promise what I write is logical - don´t expect any coherency. I will jot down things the way they are inside of me.. and i can´t really be bothered keeping a clear trace of what is written - at times it will be random, be sure of it.
This blog will be different than any other I´ve written before. Instead of keeping "the audience" (if there is one) up to date with my personal life, although no doubt you will find elements of it in the text, I will fill these pages with the passion and inspiration I get from what I think God is doing in the world. And in me.
I want to write about politics, about society, about philosophy, about music.. about humanity. And whatever else seems to be having an effect on my heart.
Because I believe God is not boxed in churches or in our personal beliefs. He doesn´t just exist somewhere.
My claim this year is that God is not invisible - watch me prove it.
I think He is "out there". Way, WAY out there. He is walking about this planet. He meets people every day. People who are not Christians. People without titles or names.
He is in politics, He is in music, He is in relationships.
And I think for the most part - we just ignore Him. Alright, I´ll give some credit - we talk about Him. But can we really see Him?
I would like to say I fully can, but it is not always so. Not every day, but when I do turn to look, I can. And you know what? He is amazing. Different to anything I would´ve imagined. If someone would have told me what I will encounter a few years ago, I would have most probably labeled them a heretic and left it there.
Now.. I think I have taken the crazy one´s place.
So let´s get into the first topic that´s been haunting me this week, shall we?
I am in my second year in university studying international relations (no, i don´t know what i will become), which means a lot of different classes on political theory, philosophy, religion, culture, security issues - anything and everything you can think of that influences the way different states interact in this world.
So right now I am going through a time where I question why things are the way they are in the world and is there any possibility they could be different.
I have to admit, I have entered these studies as a complete air-head. Meaning that I have had prejudice and pride (haha) when being introduced to different issues; most of this cockiness has been tied to my faith, by the way. It´s a whole different topic, but i´ll just mention it so you know what i have in mind - you (Christians) know how sometimes you get so concerned about being "a light" that you forget that you can´t really illuminate yourself and that the call you got from Jesus doesn´t mean that you are superior (smarter, better or more beautiful) to others? Can you feel the sense of pride in there? Yeah. There you go.
It has taken me a whole year to understand that I´m actually in school so I can learn to think differently. I actually have to open my mind and my heart and allow God to weigh these things inside of me. I haven´t "gotten it" just by birth, not even my second one!
As I have begun moving towards shutting up and listening, I have found absolutely astonishing turnarounds in my perceptions of how life works. It is so awesome! And not in ANY way does this contradict my relationship with God, but actually it shows a completely new picture of Him to me.
My "Heureka-moments" are many.
Tonight, I will give you one:
So we had a discussion in International Security studies this week about realism/ neorealism vs liberalism/neoliberalism and which of these would be a solid perception of how the world works. Those of you who don´t know, go google to get a proper intro so you can argue with me :), but they are pretty much two different views on how international relations work in the world.
Realism is based on the basic claim about human nature by Thomas Hobbes ("Leviathan")- everybody is at war with everybody - which basicly means that human nature is essentially selfish and evil and life is a power-struggle. There is no trust, no cooperation (unless there are selfish reasons); the main goal in life is security and looking out for your own skin - because everyone is at war with everyone. Also importantly - for realists, reality doesn´t change. This is our nature, we will always be at war.
In terms of states - their assumption is that the rules are the same. According to John Mearsheimer, realism in international relations makes 5 assumptions:
1. The international system is anarchic - meaning there is no supreme power to govern the relations of states, it is a power struggle.
2. States inherently possess some offensive military capability, with which they
can hurt and possibly destroy each other
3. States can never be certain about the intentions of other states.
4. The most basic motive driving states is survival.
5. States think strategically about how to survive in the international system
(they are instrumentally rational)
Liberalism on the other hand perceives human nature as being characterized by reason and tolerance. According to John Locke, considered one of the founders, human nature allows men to be selfish, this is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state however all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions". Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances.
Liberalism places the highest value on freedom of the individual. The first consequence of freedom is change.
Concerning international relations, while not denying the anarchic nature of the international system, neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated. The argument is focused on the neorealists' underestimation of "the varieties of cooperative behavior possible within... a decentralized system."
Both theories, however, consider the state and its interests as the central subject of analysis; Neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are.
Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can emerge through the building of norms, regimes and institutions.
Of course this is a debate that would just last forever and i really will not get into it, but I will just share, what I think God opened my eyes to.
For the most part, I have been a sure realist. Not in its classical sense - agreeing with Hobbes´ completely, but a lot of it, yes, I have found truthful. In terms of interaction between states - history is so full of blood and full of proof of selfish interests. It has been a power struggle, millions have died because of it. And human nature, in my view, because of our separation from GOD, really is corrupt. Even our goodness isn´t really goodness - there is usually a selfish motive behind it. I have been thoroughly disappointed in humanity. Naturally, seeing all the injustice in the world I transferred this disappointment to a bigger scale.
And in this grim world, reading the claims of guys like Woodrow Wilson or whichever idealists - i have found it ABSURD and NAIVE.
Thus, learning about politics has been really interesting, but rather depressing - because it is full of this nature.
But an important point was struck at me during our lecture, when we started discussing a theory called constructivism.
This is an absolutely amazing one, because it completely agrees with realism, but it states that it´s true not because of human nature, but because it is socially constructed - meaning because we practice it.
Power-politics exists because because states practice it. But it could be different.
To them, the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces. How we perceive the world matters, because it determines how we behave in it.
This thought is INSANE! But it struck me to my face that yeah it is easy to criticize everything and i still value talking about life the way it is. But in essence, i think the greatest problem with realism is that it is passive. If you´re a realist, you don´thave to change or even think about change. It is in itself an excuse to stay the way you are - in selfishness, if you will.
And so I started thinking about things - do things have to be unjust? Or the fact that they are - does it mean they have to stay this way? Maybe it really could be different?
And i think this idea is actually profoundly biblical - because i think God has hope in us and actually works through and with us. I am in no way denying all that is happening in the world nor the fallen state of our nature. And in the power of Jesus Christ - we are a new being. But here´s what i have come to think also - the whole idea of "the power of Christ" for me used to mean that people have to say a prayer and meet Jesus, then they can start doing justice.
I no longer think that is entirely true. Because I believe that anyone on this planet has the power to reach out to someone, love someone. And I believe Jesus can meet people "on the field", when they do acts like his. I think he can actually change people on the spot in doing so. Because unless a person climbs out of his cynical way of being, where is the point in telling him the truth? Or also, I have found that words have to backed by actions to have meaning - the same with spreading the gospel - people listen when they are surprised or shocked by your way of being, or actions, whatever - not because you said something awesome.
So you have to get out of your shoes and challenge them to get out of theirs (I mean really, truthfully), and both come back with a different look in their eyes. And that look is a work of God. You have met with Him, whether you can name it or not.
My heretical claim is the following - God meets with anyone willing to get out of their shoes.
In essence, in both big things and small things, yeah reality is reality.. but i have to believe that things can change, at least to some extent. Because God is "out there".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
