Just some trivial updates.
Two things.
First: today I ended up going to the library. This was unexpected. Also, I checked out four books. This was also completely unexpected, because it seems like the last two years I’ve read less due to being in school, having a social life, and so on.
But being at the library, it really reminded me how much I used to read. I was a serious bookworm. Simply the act of going through the shelves brought back so much nostalgia, I couldn’t say no. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to read the four books before the due date, but I’ll try. The only reason it may be possible is because they are due on the 17th of June, which is after Senior checkout. And then after I read those, I’ll read the book Maddie lent me so long ago…hey, it’s a start.
Secondly, and I realize this is really random, but Warped Tour really does get worse every year. I’ve technically only been to one, in 2007. It was ok; I saw Paramore, Cute Is What We Aim For, Anberlin, PlayRadioPlay!, As Cities Burn, Meg and Dia. In other words, bands that are pretty cool, but….definitely not my favorite bands, or incredibly amazing. Last year I only vaguely wanted to go because Relient K was playing, and I love them, but I obviously didn’t love them enough to go out of my way to see them (especially since I was broke at the time).
This year’s line up looks….meh. I recognize some band names, but am only kind of interested with less than a handful: Jeffree Star, Meg and Dia, Streetlight Manifesto, Underoath. Jeffree Star would probably be fun to watch, since he’s one of those off the wall characters, Meg and Dia are pretty safe, but not bad. Streetlight Manifesto is apparently one of the best ska bands ever, and what I’ve heard, I’ve liked. And I’ve guiltily enjoyed my share of Underoath songs.
But the real question is: do I really want to spend $31 to stand outside all day in crowds of Hot Topic scene kids? Also, it’s on a Sunday, so I probably wouldn’t show up until 1 at the earliest. Also, I’m pretty sure most of my friends realized that Warped Tour is lame…two years ago.
Yeah, the chances of me going are rather slim. Sorry, Jeffree Star.
This is what I’m doing instead of studying for physics.
And really, it just shows you the obvious: that I was never cut out to be a science major anyway.
So, the meaning of truth. I’ve had this discussion with Brad, and it was probably the closest we’ve had to an actual argument, but in all honesty, it was more like an intense debate. See, I’m someone who believes in absolute truth. People can hold various perspectives, but that does not mean their opinions are true. Brad, on the other hand, believes that there is such a thing as relative truth. However, if I remember correctly, he did agree with me that there was a certain absolute truth. I find this stance of agreeing with both sides to be very… moderate. And usually that’s my job, so I guess I won’t hammer on it too much. But still.
Well, I’ve decided that the real issue between our stances is in the definitions. See, I recently realized (while daydreaming in front of my physics study book…) that there are certain situations where truth does not exist. And I really think that these situations are few, but they do exist.
Take for instance, this example. There is a couple. They have been together for a bit, and have sunk into a routine as far as their relationship is concerned. (This parenthetical couple could be dating, married, whatever. Doesn’t matter.) Some people would think that their situation is boring, because there is no more “adventure”. Others would think that it is sweet, because they’re the kind of couple who could grow old together. Now, if one of the members of this couple thinks the former, then there is a problem. They are obviously discontent in their relationship, and should communicate this to their significant other. But if both of these people are content with their relationship, despite its lack of “pizazz”, then there is no problem with the relationship at all. In this respect, there is no concrete way to judge the relationship. There are merely opinions. The rest of the world could think that this relationship should be “better”, but if the people actually in the relationship think that it’s fine, then it is. In essence: there are only opinions, and therefore no “truth” in the matter.
Of course, this is the kind of situation that many people would say is an example of “relative truth”. But they are wrong. Because “relative truth” does not exist. It is merely an absence of truth.
But, once again, these cases are quite rare. If one aspect of this relationship was different, then there would be a way to judge the relationship. If there was abuse, then obviously this would be a detrimental relationship and should be ended.
Mostly, I think these cases are when it deals with humans and their characteristics. After all, there is no concrete answer for which kind of personality is the best. Who says that being introverted is lesser than being extroverted?
But, I really do think that there is an absolute truth, even when it comes to art. You might not appreciate it, but if there was a legitimate amount of technical skill that went into that “abstract art”, well, then it’s good. It is “real” art. Maybe it doesn’t even need technical skill, maybe all it needed was a worldview it was portraying, or an idea. “Chaos” with smears all over the place, looking like the work of a toddler. If it is honest, rather than merely for a pretentious show, then it is art.
(Of course, talking about truth and art and truth in art is tricky, because it gets into the whole realm of realism vs. the feelings/opinions of the artist. I think there are two different ways to judge art, and they are: art as skill and art as a message. Honestly, I personally dislike most realistic paintings, but obviously they have merit in the “art as skill”. I suppose that some would say that their “message” is that there is no “message” outside of the physically real. (I would disagree.) I lean much more towards abstract, because it usually portrays “art as message”. Which is interesting, because I’m sure many people would debate that most “message” art is focused mainly on human feeling, which may never equal truth. But I guess that in this sense, it’s not whether the artist was right in their opinion. The value of the art comes from whether their opinion was accurately and vividly portrayed. At least, that’s what I think at the moment. And… obviously I haven’t worked this train of thought out yet, due to just now stumbling upon it. Imagine that! I don’t have all the answers!)
