I thought I'd take a little time to clarify a position on which I stand with regards to one term I use very regularly as a term of abuse. The term Warwick University is merely an abstraction, a figurative representation of a set of characteristics for which I have the utmost loathing.
I am writing partly to address an accusation leveled at me recently that I am becoming a nazi for my pigeonholing of various sections of society into boxes and labelling some of these boxes as off-limits, which I hereby refute thus.
Although I may despise certain characteristics in people, I do not despise people as such, as every man is capable of great achievements as my charity work with the disabled and disaffected youth has shown time and again. I am acutely aware of the behaviour patterns exhibited by people and am aware equally of peoples good and bad points.
I acknowledge the argument that everyone is different, which is really so fundamental that it would only be a fool who dares dispute such an irrefutable statement. My apparent pigeonholing of the students of Warwick University, comes from my cumulative bad experience with this particular institution and is a convenient term to use as everyone can relate to the characteristics of which I speak when I use this term.
Having done a large amount of youth work for charity I have found that disadvantaged kids and the incredibly poor have motivation and desire, which I found to be so rare in the (mainly) middle class populace in Warwick. There was no dedication, no real fire in the desires of the people I met there and very little real sacrifice. Warwick Students in my argument lack integrity that you can only find under the strain of hardship, and lack the philosophical and moral grounding that can only be gained from the school of hard knocks. Too many Warwick-ites were happy enough to lie when it meant getting ahead, forging aquaintanceships for convenience with no conviction. In short the convenient shallow bonding that I despise was a prevalent feature in the bubble of Campus.
Of course there were a few exceptions which I thank God for, as I surely would have lost faith in humanity had there not been. Campus though is merely a macrocosm of the world at large, with the good bits taken out and so I acknowledge that the dull, shallow losers of which made up the bulk of Warwick university also make up the bulk of the real world too but as I just said, the real world also has the good bits in it, like Tropicana with the juicy bits in, so the proportion of real characters is higher.
The argument is that the term "Warwick University" thus sums up a feature of characteristics not a set of people which I see as complacent, spoilt, and really quite dull company. In this way I refute the accusation levelled at me that I tarnish a section of society, and see them as substandard citizens. I merely acknowledge and discriminate in order to help elucidate my argument against these characteristics of mankind as a whole and, as Jean Paul Sartre argues in defence of Aetheistic Existentialism in Existentialism and human emotions
"When we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men"
This concurs with Lao-Tzu, in Tao Te Ching, and with Plato's ideas in Republic and in following this rhetoric and the guiding principles of Taoism I seek not to impose but to refine myself for the good of society at large because it is only through the collective improvement of self that society may prosper. What the rest of society do is really none of my business but if it prospers as a result of my self-enlightenment then so be it.
It is not my intention to label a group of people, as that would achieve nothing. By identifying the traits that I aspire to avoid then I aim for the ultimate target of self-improvement by elucidating my own moral path, and by writing my thoughts here I merely allow you to follow the path if you so desire. It's your choice.
One final point though. Even the people in possession of these traits are still but people and I have nothing massively against them as people. I only dislike people who I know enough to dislike. People always have it within themselves to find their own moral pathway. that is up to them.
My aim is to lead a life I believe is morally and ethically right and my system of ethics will be different from yours as ethics arise from the circumstances of our upbringing and our subsequent system of belief. By pointing out a way of life I choose not to live and by vocalising my opposition, however that may be, to the lifestyles I believe to be in contravention to what I believe in, I am inviting you to make up your own mind.
