The Volvo that is Vern's

To answer simply: Vern's Volvo is whichever Volvo Vern chooses is Vern's Volvo.

To answer not as simply: Vern's Volvo is more than the sum of its parts – that is, the fact that his Volvo is no longer made up of any of the original parts has no bearing on whether that Volvo is “Vern's Volvo.” What actually matters is the connection that Vern makes with his car, because without that connection, Vern's Volvo would just be a volvo, not even worth a capital letter.

I believe that identity is an entirely subjective thing – there is no objective essence or identity to an object. Something has meaning because we give it meaning, and that meaning can vary from person to person. My five dollar bill is worth five dollars because it's accepted that it's worth five dollars – if no one accepted the bill as money or acknowledged that it had value, then it's just a piece of paper with a picture of Lincoln on it. For that matter, human life only has value because we want it to; if people believed that human existence has no meaning or worth, then human life has no meaning or worth. So it follows that whichever Volvo Vern chooses is “Vern's Volvo” IS Vern's Volvo, regardless of whether it's Grace's remake or the Volvo that Vern's been driving around. In the same vein, the other Volvo isn't Vern's because he didn't choose it, but if he had chosen it, then it would be the Volvo.

The importance lies in the choice, which can be a conscious decision or not. It's also a choice only Vern can make. I can sit here and put myself in Vern's shoes and think about the choice that I would make if it were Nick's Volvo rather than Vern's, but I can't make the decision for him. This sort of thinking, that the essence and identity of something is subjective, applies to more than just the metaphor of Vern and his Volvo. It applies to existence on a grand scale, and even the nature of truth itself. If one accepts that Vern's Volvo is the pile of scraps (or Grace's eventual remake) because those are the original parts, then it implies there's an objective truth independent of us – Vern's Volvo is Vern's Volvo regardless of what he thinks is his Volvo. But on the other hand, if one accepts that Vern's Volvo is whichever Volvo Vern chooses is his Volvo, then it implies that there's a more subjective nature to truth and identity – we choose what is actually the Volvo, regardless of what parts it's made of, and we choose based on our personal values.

Know Thyself

      To know oneself is to have intimate knowledge of all your faults and strengths. By knowing this, people can better use their talents in everyday life – when faced with a challenge or obstacle, they don't have to sit around and wonder whether they can do it, if they have they know themselves, they can quickly decide whether a solution is within their abilities. Such a knowledge breeds a kind of self-confidence, a confidence that seemingly impossible tasks are actually easily overcome because you know exactly what you can or can't do.

      My own weakness would probably be a lack of personal drive. Whether I actually have the ability to do something or not, it takes a huge amount of mental willpower for me to sit down and do what I need to do. Homework that should take 15 minutes when I get home gets delayed until 10 at night or later, and then it gets pushed off until the morning, and in the morning I decide it's not worth doing and I'll just take the zero, if the teacher even checks for it. I get distracted way too easily by video games or the internet or books, and it takes a toll on my school work. Even if the weekend before an essay is due I have plenty of time to work on it, I still choose to spend my time doing anything else. It may not be a particularly unique problem, as plenty of other teenagers are afflicted with procrastination, but still a big one for me. And yet I haven't really done anything to solve it. I remember thinking back in freshman year that, seeing as I'd gotten into high school, I should probably crack the whip and study hard. Did I? No. Then, sophomore year, same thoughts, same results, or the lack thereof. Junior year was the same, and senior year is quickly shaping up to follow suit. I even procrastinate in my efforts to stop procrastinating.

      It's interesting how I could really quickly come up with a weakness, but I'm having a lot of difficulty thinking of a strength, probably showing my extreme lack of self-knowledge. I suppose my strength could be my love of books – I love reading anything I can get my hands on. Since I was a kid, I'd work my way through my parents' library, not quite understanding everything I read, but still absorbing the words. I read Tale of Two Cities when I was 10, but could barely remember a word of it when I had to read it again in freshman year. It didn't matter what I read, as long as I could read something. This love and thirst continues today, but it just doesn't extend to anything I'm told to read, unless I already had an interest in it before getting an assignment. For me, learning is great only when I choose to do it voluntarily. When a teacher has to tell me to read a book on so and so, I almost unconsciously drag my feet as much as possible. But if I had stumbled across the same book on my own, I'd gladly read it.

       So, it's with that in mind that I actually disagree with the idea that we find it difficult to talk or write about ourselves – I think it's really very easy for us to discuss ourselves, but only when we want to. In conversation with friends, I've noticed people will frequently, and with great ease, go to great lengths to talk about themselves and their lives. But when it's an assignment, it's completely different. One factor in this is definitely the privacy of it all – when we're talking to our friends, they already know us, and we feel comfortable with them, so we can divulge our inner selves with much gusto. But when a teacher or anyone of authority or just someone we don't know well asks us to discuss our biggest strength or weakness, we freeze up. How much do we want them to know about us? Will they judge us for what they hear? That's when we suddenly develop a need for privacy, and it becomes difficult to discuss anything personal. 

Keep the Faith

To start with, I have to say I don't believe in the dichotomy of good and evil, on the grounds that I don't think life and morality is that black and white, and because good and evil is entirely subjective. The simple fact is that even if you so fervently believe that you are good and your opponent is evil, they think the exact reverse – that you are evil, and they good. Someone is not evil just because they disagree with you. To use a modern example, Al Qaeda is not evil. Their perspectives and beliefs just differ from our own. I don't personally agree with their tactics or their methods or their ideals, but this doesn't make me the good guy, or them the evil villain. In the modern age, there is no titanic clash between good and evil, there is only a clash of perspectives.

So then, to follow, I don't believe it's possible for good to be rewarded or evil punished on divine scale, since they don't really exist. But that's not to say that on a societal level, acting according to the rules and ethics of one's society shouldn't be rewarded. In a society, the concept of what's morally 'good' is imposed on its citizens. So when a person within a society acts according to the laws of its society, this is considered good, and thus that person should be rewarded. The person should be rewarded because by following these rules, the massive machinery that makes up a civilization is allowed to smoothly operate. And the inverse also holds true – if a man or woman acts against the rules of the society (and thus considered 'evil' by the society's standards), punishment should be allotted to discourage further 'evil', and keep society flowing smoothly.

(But as I write this I almost cringe, because it seems to go against my belief that the individual is more important than the society at large, and an individual should be able to break free from what society imposes upon them and follow their own path. But I guess looking at this from a theoretical standpoint, and focusing on the reward and punishment system in society, I can excuse myself.)

Of course, the world doesn't always work this way: seemingly good people are punished for doing the supposedly right thing all the time. I'm regularly reminded by my parents and other adults that doing the right thing is usually the hardest thing to do, and that the easy way isn't always right. Then why do we continue to do the 'right thing' if it only yields punishment?

Because we have to.

If we don't live according to what we believe is ethically right, then how do we live? The only option, as I see it, is to keep chugging away in life and doing what you believe is right. To cower in fear and live life terrified of consequences is far worse than to live as one wants and to be struck down for it.

For God to punish Job, a righteous and pious man and in every way a perfect servant of God, illustrates the idea that bad things do happen to good people. The world doesn't work that way, and the Book of Job, as a wisdom text, shows this quite plainly. People need to understand that calamity and misfortune don't discriminate, and terrible tragedies can befall even the best people. But what's important is that one keeps the faith, so to speak. Not necessarily religious faith, but faith that things will work out and get better, or faith in your own beliefs. In the end, the Book of Job teaches us that we need to stick to our guns and do what we think is right, even if the worst possible events befall us.