Transcendentalist or not?

"Transcendentalism is a religious and philosophical movement that developed[...]as a protest against the general state of spirituality[...]among the transcendentalists' core beliefs was the inherent goodness of both people and nature. They believe that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupt the purity of the individual. They have faith that people are at their best when truly 'self-reliant' and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed."-Wikipedia.

In my mind, transcendentalism is, in essence, a mix of humanism and idealism with a touch of disestablismentarianism. It not necessarily glorifies humans, but it does say we are good before corruption. It says that we can be better by being singular and, as a certain Mr. Emerson put it, "self-reliant". It believes that the societal institutions debase us from our near-divinity. All of this sounds nice, but the fact of the matter is that I don't believe it.

Some of it is simply my own religious beliefs, some of it is from my own personal cynicism. I have seen and felt too much hatred, too much distrust, too much inherent badness to believe that humans contain inherent goodness. Now would I like to believe this? Absolutely. I would love to see the best in everyone, I would love to be a better person than I am. But the unfortunate truth is that I can't see things that way. I see the world best described as how Calvin posed a question to Hobbes as they hurtled down a snowy hill to oblivion: "Do you think that humans are naturally good with a few bad tendencies, or naturally bad with a few good tendencies?" I would agree with the latter.

Don't get me wrong, there are decent human beings, and even a few indecent human beings who occasionally do decent things, but the fact remains, that people can't seem to shake the darkness that clouds our conscience, which, I believe, points us to good deeds, but our human nature negates said conscience. This, however begs the question, what's the point in doing good if we are just naturally bad and can't really do anything about it? The point is that doing good is the right thing. Not just because it helps you, but because it helps those around you. Good deeds or actions should never be done out of the slightest selfish desire, but a desire to help one's neighbor, to help one's country, to help one's planet. Good deeds are a rare thing these days, just about everybody has some personal agenda, other people's plans and actions be damned. But I won't say not to try and do good. On the contrary, open doors, invite people to join a conversation, be friends with those who don't seem to have many, be gracious, loving and kind, no matter your personal gain, if any.

Bowling for Columbine Response

In the documentary "Bowling for Columbine", the incendiary filmmaker Michael Moore tackles the issue of guns, and America's obsession with them. Through shocking images, amusing interactions, and a thorough amount of awkwardness, Moore reels the audience in.

The documentary is an ironic look at our culture, and how America seems to have an obsession with guns. He uses his voice at a monotone so that the shocking images of live television broadcasts showing shootings and suicides and the frankly jarring ideas and beliefs passing over his voiceover are that much more persuasive. He manages to still keep us interested, both horrified and transfixed on this problem.

Moore also makes use of interactions with people to prove his point. At one part of the documentary, he visits Canada to talk with people about the gun problem in America. Many of the people he interviewed were relaxed and calm. I was especially surprised when Moore simply opened people's doors in broad daylight and the people who owned the houses just took it in stride. Contrasting that to America, Moore paints a very different picture. Here, we lock our doors, we lock our cars, we buy guns for protection, etc. We're afraid, essentially. 
It also helps when Moore points out that the gun related deaths for the US in one year is 11,127, whereas in Canada, it's 165. And that's not even the lowest. Another talking head said that if more guns equal more safety, then America should be the safest country in the world. Obviously, it isn't.

One thing of this documentary that I didn't so much like, was the fact that the interviews were so awkward. If you know me, you know I can't stand those awkward cringe moments in movies or TV. If I can, I will make an excuse (a bad one) to get out of the room until the scene goes away. Obviously, I couldn't do that in a school setting. But I'm not saying that those scenes were bad for the message he brought across, they just were unsettling, particularly his interview with Charlton Heston. Regardless, it proved his point.

Flashing images, a few chuckle-worthy lines, and cringe-worthy talking heads may not sound like they'd add up to a great documentary. However, Michael Moore pulls it off, entertaining many while bringing up a surprising amount of questions on how we look at our culture of fear. Now the question remains: what do we do with these questions?