Motivations of creativity and self-expression

In the Renaissance, melancholy was associated with creativity, with genius. And rightly so. Democritus may have been a laughing philosopher, but he was one of the exceptions. Intellectual endeavor is a form of creativity too, after all. And among the artists, the writers, so many were sad people, and led sad lives. Heraclitus is a famous example of melancholy among philosophers. It is not an observation unique to me, but melancholy among writers and artists is often a layer beneath hedonism, and a layer above dissatisfaction, and the self-questioning of self-doubt.

People inclined to sustained expression in a disciplined form, whether intellectual or aesthetic, tend to be unfulfilled, meaning-hungry. They make things that mean something because they are working through their sense of futility, meaninglessness- trying to make an elusive meaning manifest- or convince themselves that meaning is not elusive, by trumpeting the illusion that there is one that exists apart from our fallacies and inconsistences, objective and lasting.

But the question of meaning- of seeking it, or dissatisfaction with its fleeting moments, and its fleeting from moments formerly whole and satisfying in themselves- this is fundamental to the drive for expression, whether personal or epic, academic or transcendental. There is this sense of trying to hold onto time: what we love within it, what we want to remember (the two are not always the same), what we want others to remember through the lens of what we have made.

The test of whether you care about something

The test of whether you care about something does not come when you have it, but when it is gone. It is an old observation. It is easy to say you don’t care about money, status, etc., when you have it. When you lack it, and neither miss it nor seek it, that is the sign of not caring about it. If you care enough to keep it, then you care about it- regardless of what you say to the contrary. What we do not care about, we give away, we leave behind.

The United States- hegemony or empire?

The United States fits the definition of a hegemon more neatly then it fits the definition of an empire. It is less intent on conquest than on exerting power, and exerts power more for economic and political purposes, both internal and external, than for purposes of increasing territory or controlling foreign populations directly. The latter- increasing territory, controlling foreign populations directly- are only engaged in for the short term (i.e., a decade or so), and only when doing so serves economic and political aims, or is a consequence (not always desired, but sometimes) of attempts to meet these aims. This does not make our foreign policies any less despicable, but criticizing them effectively begins with seeing their character (hegemonic, rather than imperial) accurately.