"The question that faces every man born into this world is not what should be his purpose, which he should set about to achieve, but just what to do with life? The answer . . . is more a practical question . . . then a metaphysical proposition as to what is the mystic purpose of his life in the scheme of the universe." -Lin Yutang
It is an age-old question: what is the purpose in life? Theologians and philosophers alike have pondered the question for several millennia. Without a doubt, it arises most often when there is little sense of direction in life. In such instances, there is the human need to question the nature of existence and to look to an overarching plan from a higher power. Is it as simple as divine serendipity, or nothing more than setting goals and achieving them on your own?
The role in life can be an allusive one. Should we be an individual or part of the collective? Are we to play the part of oppressor or the oppressed or a collection of individuals that fight for the oppressed against the oppressors? Throughout history, the answers have often been determined by the standard sociological measures social, economic and political status, as well as place of birth. These factors are not limiting, however especially at the dawn of the 21st century. Any person, entity or nation can branch beyond what they are given at birth. It is simply a matter of wanting, and striving towards that goal.
Yet, there are those who are unable to reach their potential, their purpose, through no fault of their own. They become victims of their circumstances. In the course of human history, failure has often outweighed success from the first amoeba that failed to reproduce to the hundreds of dotcoms that went bust. What can be said about that trend? Is it that some are destined to fail, that that is their purpose, while others are born for something greater? Or that failure, no matter the effort, is a natural order of existence, and success can only be measured by it?
Of course, some people merely quit, crushed by the weight of trying in life. They have lost the quintessential emotion next to love - hope. When hope no longer exists, the same is true of dreams and life itself. Fortunately, when all hope is lost the only place to look is up. Only then do some find their role in life.
In the pursuit of the answer to our purpose, more often than not we end up finding the purpose without realizing it. The question drives us toward our purpose; the answer itself is irrelevant. Without the question, there would be no sense to act and we would fail to answer the question. What is the purpose in life? The answer is already known - it is a leap of faith based on the strength of our convictions and the ability to act upon them in order to reach our goals. It just depends on whether one accepts failure as an option.
©2006 Steve Sagarra
Are there no new ideas? To borrow from Hollywood, are there only old ideas to be re-imagined? In the 1980s, Coca-Cola attempted to re-image a classic by introducing New Coke. It was a disaster. Prompted by the choice of a new generation, Coca-Cola switched back to the tried and true formula. There have been many others to muddle with a good thing, not fortunate like Coca-Cola to rebound in such a way. The adage has proved repeatedly that some things should not be changed, as “new and improved” does not necessarily translate to better.
The question remains though, are there no new ideas? Perhaps it needs to be examined from a different perspective – have we reached a point where only the improvement and reinvention of old ideas is viable? Can there be any new ideas? Styles and trends are the epitome of old versus new, creativity versus re-imagining. This occurs when an innovative idea becomes the norm, and then is repeatedly copied until the novelty is worn out. The problem lies in the fact that even when “new” ideas are introduced, they are simply old ones relabeled. It is simply a way to reintroduce products to a new generation. Take for example bell-bottom jeans, now back in style after a long hiatus. Only they are not called bell-bottoms – they are called “flares,” “boot cut,” or any plethora of names; they are, however, the same wide-legged jeans of the 1960s & ‘70s repackaged under a new name. Very original.
The worse case of this creativity, however, comes from Hollywood itself – the Mecca of re-imagined storylines. Tim Burton did it with a remake of the cult classic Planet of the Apes (ironically, Governor Arnold was to star in another Charlton Heston cult classic, The Omega Man), as did George Clooney et al with Ocean’s Eleven. Is Hollywood so lacking new ideas that they must continually remake and re-imagine earlier works? Film is not Shakespeare to be re-interpreted over and over and over ad nauseum, which only serves to dilute the originality and take away any importance the original may hold. Is it not too far of a stretch to perhaps one day see the likes of actors and actresses recasting Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, or even Citizen Kane?
Change is inevitable, and the catalyst for a society, but the change must be a measurable one that shows actual growth. While it is natural and beneficial to expand upon the work of others, especially those that came before us, there are just certain things that should be left alone. Newness as change that perpetuates the old is not change at all, but rather stagnation. So, when a politician, author or Uncle Lou touts a “new” idea based on the innovation of old-fashioned values, take them at their word. It is just another old idea that someone else thought of before, repackaged for a new, and unsuspecting, generation.
©2006 Steve Sagarra
Definition of fascism: political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation, and often race, above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Prime Minister Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, supported by the likes of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, has described President George W. Bush of the United States and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain as such. It is sad to see that proper history education is an international issue, not just a national one. The liberal media of the United States had earlier voiced the same opinion of President Bush, beating out both Mugabe and Chavez by a length in their ignorance. Unfortunately, the current cry of fascism comes from the leaders of these two countries. One only has to look at history to imagine what the average citizen of Zimbabwe, not to mention Venezuela, have come to believe, brainwashed by their leaders through propaganda and deception – two tactics found extremely useful by Adolph Hitler, the most infamous of fascists, in duping the German citizenry.
Of course, Zimbabwe should be praised as the great pillar of democracy and humanitarianism in the international community. Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, gained independence from Great Britain in 1980 after years of oppression and conflict. However, Mugabe has dominated Zimbabwean politics for decades, serving as the country's only leader since independence. Even more revealing, he manipulated the most recent elections – despite international condemnation – to ensure his continued reign of power, as his security forces brutally repressed any opposition. If that does not sound like fascism à la Hitler, someone needs to read a Webster's dictionary.
As far as economic matters, Zimbabwe's failure to meet budgetary goals has increased inflation tenfold while poor choices have siphoned hundreds of millions of dollars from the economy. The government's land reform program alone – characterized by chaos and violence – badly damaged the commercial farming sector, the traditional source of exports and foreign exchange. The fiscal mismanagement of the Zimbabwean government, not foreign economic oppression from the likes of the "fascist" United States and Great Britain, has hampered the country's economy. Incidentally, the European Union and the United States provide substantial economic aid packages designed to stimulate the country's economy so that Zimbabwe can be less dependent on foreign assistance.
In matters of humanitarianism, Zimbabwe is among the worst. Under his leadership, the Mugabe government has destroyed homes, destroyed the means of earning a living, and destroyed valuable food staples in a country already threatened with famine. Reported by several independent investigations, millions of people have faced starvation as a direct result of Mugabe's policy of denying food to those that oppose him while enriching his own supporters. Naturally, the state-owned media consistently accuses aid groups of being tools of the "imperialist, colonialist West," as the government confiscates and diverts for its own use the aid packages the groups bring into the country. All while Zimbabweans starve to death. Not surprising, since Mugabe is the same man who massacred thousands à la Pol Pot of Cambodia to insure his legitimacy when he first came to power.
In their criticisms and accusations, leaders like Mugabe and Chavez, as well as all others who share their views, have shown their true colors. It would be advisable, however, that they look in the mirror before making such statements. Just like the many other tyrannical dictators who saw themselves as the "voice of the people," they just might find themselves on the wrong side of history.
©2005 Steve Sagarra
