Skip to main content

Am I Allowed to Feel Nostalgic?

By
In reading the new biography of George C. Marshall, I found my thoughts drawn back to the place where I had my first library job, Marshall's hometown of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. A co-worker and I were talking at lunch about places we'd lived in the past, and I wondered if I was allowed to feel nostalgia at twenty-six, or whether that somehow seemed too early. I can't explain the feeling, because in many ways the months spent in Uniontown were the worst of my life. While I loved my co-workers, the ugliness and poverty of the place depressed me, the tightness of my financial state constantly gnawed at me, the reality of life after graduation clashing heavily with what I had hoped would come next, and I found that my natural tendencies towards melancholy and self-pity bottomed out into complete and endless depression. 

I had a similar feeling of nostalgia last week when I was browsing the Earth and Mineral Sciences library on Penn State's main campus. It drew me back to thoughts of my time in grad school, some evenings spent browsing the stacks in the university library there. Grad school too was not a happy time in my life, with the stress of job-hunting and deep-seated insecurity about all aspects of my life, both present and future. But browsing the shelves of a university library, at ease among rows of challenging reading to stimulate my mind, I felt at home again. I'd forgotten how much I missed living in a university town.

Perhaps nostalgia isn't quite the word I'm looking for. It encompasses some of what I've felt, but not nearly all. Perhaps perspective is the better choice. At both of those points in my life, the present was so depressing that I found I could not imagine a future worth hoping for and working towards. Being able to look back and recognize those places as the temporary way stations they were, a recognition I should have been able to make at the time, helps give me more hope for my own future than I have long been able to muster. During those periods, I could not have known where I would be now, three years on. I could not have known what changes could happen in such a short period of time. I've traded the insecurities of three years ago for other ones, the old worries for new, but the perspective of thinking back to these times helps me to meet these with just a bit more courage than I once had, so that when the melancholy asserts itself, I can push it back again. 

Not nostalgia, perhaps, but something better. A hopefulness for the future rather than a wistfulness for the past. And that is far more useful. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

By
Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...
11 comments
Read more