Solar storm
Nuclear war
Asteroid impact
Blazar
This has made me realise that our humble existence is an underappreciated facility.
What a year 2020 has been...
Earthquakes
Tsunamis
Cyclones
Floods
Volcanic eruptions
Massive forest fires
Unprecedented pandemic
Economic crisis
Social disharmony
Terrorist attacks
Armed conflicts and hostilities
A truly abysmal year, but thankfully, we survived...
Solar storm
Nuclear war
Asteroid impact
Blazar
This has made me realise that our humble existence is an underappreciated facility.
While coping with a sudden disruption in commercial activity leading to a brief spell of global socialism, we saw hijacked, outsourced and sponsored protests fuelled by social divisions and insecurities.
It made me realise the incompetence of reward-oriented work.
From the yogic perspective (सुख-दुःखे समे कृत्वा), this was certainly an educational year but was devoid of satisfaction.
I learnt a lot about myself and my place in this world, especially about my strengths and my vulnerabilities, during this introspective year.
This year has truly shaken our foundations and I hope that the wisdom of 2020 reforms our civilization.
More from Culture
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
