Freedom. I would define it as the ability to be in any state at any given time. This freedom however is infringed upon by out side forces. We can be restricted by several varieties of influences in the physical, mental, emotional/psychological, and social arenas. For example, gravity and other basic laws of physics restrict us in a physical manner, while ignorance of an available option can mentally inhibit a person’s freedom.
I feel that this concept is applicable when discussing responsibility and the free will (or perhaps the lack there of) of a person. The first two, mental and physical, are the more commonly excused of these such as in cases where one forgets something or a person is simply no physically able to accomplish a given tack. However, the others, emotional/psychological and social, seem to be less considered when it comes time to assert that one is worthy of blame. These influences can either come from an imprint left from some past experience or from pressures present during the time of an action of some sort. The shooting scene in The Stranger can serve as a good example of a situation in which many do not consider such things. I feel safe in saying that there would be many out there that felt that Meursault was a “senseless murder[er]” and well deserved his death sentence.
While it may be easily to pass Meursault off as just a murderer with a poor reason for it, have they not considered that perhaps this event was out his control to some extent? The novel states that it was caused due to Meursault’s discomfort from the intense heat and sun exposure. Sure, it may sound like a ludicrous excuse, but it seems reasonable enough to me. I would compare the reflex to that of some one who might snap back a sharp comment due to frustration and irritation. His emotional state from the conditions could be seen as having limited his freedom in the scenario. In addition to the psychological aspect, his state as a sociopath could have inhibited his ability to reason through the potential repercussions of his actions because of his lack of concern for them. This would be considered a mental or social restriction that has been placed on him.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Of Politics and Misunderstandings
Monthly Connection February
The difficulty in reading literature is differentiating between what is there and what is not. Any ambiguity left by the author will lead to misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the novel. This has become especially prominent during discussion of The Awakening. The largely glossed over topic of the ending was never actually discussed and it seemed to be forgotten that it never said she committed suicide. It could be seen as inferred that she did and I can see why it would fit into her situation, but it never explicitly said that she had done so. Some said that she should have just left the society and if she really disliked it so much. As I see it that is exactly what she had done. The island resort is a retreat from society and when she was there at the beginning of the novel, the symbolism coincided with her relationship with Robert. Once she returned to her home, she was without Robert and was once again pressured by society in the form of her husband. Her return to the resort and her swimming expressed her newfound freedom from society, and she very well could have stayed there alive. It is also important to note that this time she is back without Robert, since she now sees him as just another influence of society where as she welcomed his presence before as more a free spirit who could help to free her from her mundane life. Even if we were to say she had died out there where we last see her in the water, it is anyone’s guess as to whether her own death was intentional or if she had just overestimated her swimming abilities and perhaps got distracted with her thoughts while swimming.
Many stories are left “unknown” and everyone is left to find what they believe to be their own idea of a conclusion. A very similar type of situation can arise from media news coverage. If a story is brought up, you cannot trust everything you hear. Sure, you could accept it all as true, but how would you really know? How many have even been in some of the parts of the world where these stories happen? It is a 1984 type scenario in that anything we hear could be true or false. IT does tend to get very annoying how the media form of television (among others) has so much control over people and how other people view it. The recent election serves a great example. Most knowledge that people had on the topic was obtained through newscasts primarily on television (or their online counterparts). Now, people are very eager to jump at their media for their bias towards either Democrats or Republicans, saying that it could cost them public image or even the election. What I find interesting is that people will fight for that difference in press coverage, but the complete and utter lack of coverage of independent parties is of no concern to them. This lack of exposure to the truth of their existence and viability leads viewers to reach their own conclusion of these candidates not being serious contenders.
During the election I was a daily watcher of CNN. While I am sure people would be quick to point out how they favor Democrats and would only say bad things about McCain (not that these are necessarily true), I would far more concerned how little they covered any parties. Throughout all of my watching of their programs, I saw an independent discussed once, for less than five minutes, and they were just discussing Obama/McCain with an independent candidate.
You can tell that it is becoming a two party system when the following types of conversations are commonplace:
“Obama is vague!”
“You know… McCain, in that last debate didn’t exactly say what those ‘essential programs’ exempt from his spending freeze were. He could cut nothing and still be telling the truth. Its also the third variation he has given of his spending freeze.”
“But Obama..!?!”
The difficulty in reading literature is differentiating between what is there and what is not. Any ambiguity left by the author will lead to misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the novel. This has become especially prominent during discussion of The Awakening. The largely glossed over topic of the ending was never actually discussed and it seemed to be forgotten that it never said she committed suicide. It could be seen as inferred that she did and I can see why it would fit into her situation, but it never explicitly said that she had done so. Some said that she should have just left the society and if she really disliked it so much. As I see it that is exactly what she had done. The island resort is a retreat from society and when she was there at the beginning of the novel, the symbolism coincided with her relationship with Robert. Once she returned to her home, she was without Robert and was once again pressured by society in the form of her husband. Her return to the resort and her swimming expressed her newfound freedom from society, and she very well could have stayed there alive. It is also important to note that this time she is back without Robert, since she now sees him as just another influence of society where as she welcomed his presence before as more a free spirit who could help to free her from her mundane life. Even if we were to say she had died out there where we last see her in the water, it is anyone’s guess as to whether her own death was intentional or if she had just overestimated her swimming abilities and perhaps got distracted with her thoughts while swimming.
Many stories are left “unknown” and everyone is left to find what they believe to be their own idea of a conclusion. A very similar type of situation can arise from media news coverage. If a story is brought up, you cannot trust everything you hear. Sure, you could accept it all as true, but how would you really know? How many have even been in some of the parts of the world where these stories happen? It is a 1984 type scenario in that anything we hear could be true or false. IT does tend to get very annoying how the media form of television (among others) has so much control over people and how other people view it. The recent election serves a great example. Most knowledge that people had on the topic was obtained through newscasts primarily on television (or their online counterparts). Now, people are very eager to jump at their media for their bias towards either Democrats or Republicans, saying that it could cost them public image or even the election. What I find interesting is that people will fight for that difference in press coverage, but the complete and utter lack of coverage of independent parties is of no concern to them. This lack of exposure to the truth of their existence and viability leads viewers to reach their own conclusion of these candidates not being serious contenders.
During the election I was a daily watcher of CNN. While I am sure people would be quick to point out how they favor Democrats and would only say bad things about McCain (not that these are necessarily true), I would far more concerned how little they covered any parties. Throughout all of my watching of their programs, I saw an independent discussed once, for less than five minutes, and they were just discussing Obama/McCain with an independent candidate.
You can tell that it is becoming a two party system when the following types of conversations are commonplace:
“Obama is vague!”
“You know… McCain, in that last debate didn’t exactly say what those ‘essential programs’ exempt from his spending freeze were. He could cut nothing and still be telling the truth. Its also the third variation he has given of his spending freeze.”
“But Obama..!?!”
Friday, January 30, 2009
In Which I Critique the Critic
*This is my January 2009 Monthly Connection*
Upon reaching the third essay in the recent full exam, I found the line “Critic Roland Barthes has said, ‘Literature is the question minus the answer.’” Just this first line already filled me with skepticism of the value of the prompt as I trudged through the rest. After finding that the requirement was to apply this quote to a work of literature to affirm the given statement, my already low opinion of those who create standardized writing prompts dropped to all new lows. Not only does it have us just assume that we agree with this apparently well-known critic and is worthy of our analysis, but it selects such a poor quote at that.
Literature=Question-Answer?
How? I would imagine that the following would be more accurate:
“Philosophy”=Question-Answer
Literature=Philosophy+ “Other”
In this case, “other” is representative of the writing and entertainment value of the literature, which Barthes seems to have excluded. Take, for example, Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. The play seems to question the validity of our drives and motives in life, particularly those of friendship and religion. However the book does not simply read, “What is our purpose in life? The End.” If the opening line were at all remotely the case, then this would be the book. However, Beckett’s use of quick and clever dialogue is something to be experience, even if the critic seems to suggest otherwise (ironic much?).
It seems that the need to sound intelligent or edgy by using intentionally vague or witty remarks often takes priority over actually making a point. While I find these approaches to be very adventitious, they only useful if uses in conjunction with a solid idea, such as Beckett has in Waiting for Godot. The given quote form the prompt however would make a good example of when not to do this.
I would be tempted to merely ignore this and take it as a one time affair were it not for:
a. This is the AP exam…
b. This seems to happen on every standardized test that college-bound students are subjected to.
With this prompt having been taken right off of an AP exam, I have higher expectations than I do of the prompts of other tests. Now, the quote, despite my distaste for it, is “salvageable” in the sense that the question can be adapted easily to provide a more interesting question. Because the quote is questionable, why not have this topic?
“This critic said ‘Literature is the question minus the answer’. Using a piece of literature as a reference, give reasoning as to why you would find this to be true or false.”
Was that really that difficult?! This uses the quote without need for it to be accepted initially as true or false. It leaves the writer to use what they think and what they have read to reach their own conclusion.
As my second point suggests, this happens quite a lot. While taking the SATs for the second time, I recall receiving a prompt to the effect of “What makes people happy?” Am I really expected to answer this? And in 30 minutes?? This strikes me as a question that would require an entire project dedicated to it to approach the question as is. Not having access to such large extensions of time, they received from me a few brief statements outlining how I could not tell them because the answer has the potential to vary from person to person. What was to be considered as “happy” was of course left up in the air as well, not helping the situation. This didn’t seem to go over well given the result of a 2 (on a 2-12 scale) for, I believe, the second time.
Upon reaching the third essay in the recent full exam, I found the line “Critic Roland Barthes has said, ‘Literature is the question minus the answer.’” Just this first line already filled me with skepticism of the value of the prompt as I trudged through the rest. After finding that the requirement was to apply this quote to a work of literature to affirm the given statement, my already low opinion of those who create standardized writing prompts dropped to all new lows. Not only does it have us just assume that we agree with this apparently well-known critic and is worthy of our analysis, but it selects such a poor quote at that.
Literature=Question-Answer?
How? I would imagine that the following would be more accurate:
“Philosophy”=Question-Answer
Literature=Philosophy+ “Other”
In this case, “other” is representative of the writing and entertainment value of the literature, which Barthes seems to have excluded. Take, for example, Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. The play seems to question the validity of our drives and motives in life, particularly those of friendship and religion. However the book does not simply read, “What is our purpose in life? The End.” If the opening line were at all remotely the case, then this would be the book. However, Beckett’s use of quick and clever dialogue is something to be experience, even if the critic seems to suggest otherwise (ironic much?).
It seems that the need to sound intelligent or edgy by using intentionally vague or witty remarks often takes priority over actually making a point. While I find these approaches to be very adventitious, they only useful if uses in conjunction with a solid idea, such as Beckett has in Waiting for Godot. The given quote form the prompt however would make a good example of when not to do this.
I would be tempted to merely ignore this and take it as a one time affair were it not for:
a. This is the AP exam…
b. This seems to happen on every standardized test that college-bound students are subjected to.
With this prompt having been taken right off of an AP exam, I have higher expectations than I do of the prompts of other tests. Now, the quote, despite my distaste for it, is “salvageable” in the sense that the question can be adapted easily to provide a more interesting question. Because the quote is questionable, why not have this topic?
“This critic said ‘Literature is the question minus the answer’. Using a piece of literature as a reference, give reasoning as to why you would find this to be true or false.”
Was that really that difficult?! This uses the quote without need for it to be accepted initially as true or false. It leaves the writer to use what they think and what they have read to reach their own conclusion.
As my second point suggests, this happens quite a lot. While taking the SATs for the second time, I recall receiving a prompt to the effect of “What makes people happy?” Am I really expected to answer this? And in 30 minutes?? This strikes me as a question that would require an entire project dedicated to it to approach the question as is. Not having access to such large extensions of time, they received from me a few brief statements outlining how I could not tell them because the answer has the potential to vary from person to person. What was to be considered as “happy” was of course left up in the air as well, not helping the situation. This didn’t seem to go over well given the result of a 2 (on a 2-12 scale) for, I believe, the second time.
In Which I Discuss The Fountain Head
In The Fountain Head by Ayn Rand, Peter Keating was identified as a man who could have become the ideal like Howard Roark. Also, during our Socratic seminar others also agreed that Keating was incorrect in his actions (through use of the word blame). I feel that once you add the assumption that Ayn Rand wrote her books to help spread her ideas you end up with an inconsistency in the logic of these assumptions.
It boils down to the question of whether or not Rand’s ideas were ones that can be expected to be already known by all people, or if they need to be taught it. If it were innate knowledge that Ayn Rand’s philosophy was how people were supposed to live, then why was there any need to write all of these books about them? They would learn nothing from the books that they were not already aware of. If however you choose to say that people do need to be taught her philosophy (thus justifying the writing of the books) you then admit that to saying that Keating did nothing wrong because he was never taught Rand’s philosophy. Either way, it shows a potential flaw in the novel.
Peter Keating acted incorrectly based on his beliefs.
Ayn Rand wrote her books for the purpose of spreading her philosophy.
Peter Keating was never taught Objectivism.
Either Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism) is innate, or it not innate.
If Objectivism is innate then Ayn Rand had no purpose to write her books. (Contradiction with the second premise)
If Objectivism is not innate then Peter Keating cannot be blamed for his actions. (Contradiction of the first premise)
Therefore, either Ayn Rand had no reason to write her books (inconsistent), or Peter Keating cannot be blamed (inconsistent).
(Therefore either an inconsistency or an inconsistency)
Therefore, there is an inconsistency.
These types of inconsistent statements (to blame Keating) are very common among people, and they often go unnoticed and unchanged. One that is appropriate for what is happening in the United States right now and also irritates me is in regards to whether or not people should vote. The statement is of course the following: “You should vote because people died to give you the right to do so!” For a vast majority of people who say this, the statement is inconsistent with their other beliefs. The example that tends to be most effective is one that concludes that the person hates the terrorist groups for attacking the U.S. on September 11, 2001. When a person dies for a cause, they do so on their own accord for their own beliefs. They should not assume that others would share the same vision and hold whatever they died for sacred just because they felt it was. The terrorists attacked us in the mindset that they were committing possibly the most sacred act they possibly could. However, you do not see these same people (the ones telling people to vote) telling others to become terrorists just because another individual has dedicated himself or herself to the cause.
It seems to me that people are often all too eager to either accept an idea or to project and idea with little thought put into it. These tendencies lead to people putting out thoughtless ideas with others accepting these ideas. One potential cause of this appears as if it could be the current school system, which ironically enough is meant to help prevent this. Tight schedules, large workloads, and the stressed importance of grades often lead to the idea that an education is only measured in numerical values, and that the most obvious answer is always sufficient. While grades represent to some degree a person’s intellectual ability, most of it is dependent on the students desire to display their abilities to others (usually referred to instead as “work ethic”), whether it be teachers, peers, or colleges.
One example of this often seen would be class discussions. Questions are brought up that require a near immediate answer. This need for an immediate answer conveys the ideas to students that no thought is needed, since no time is given for it unless the person happened to have already thought of a response at an earlier time.
It boils down to the question of whether or not Rand’s ideas were ones that can be expected to be already known by all people, or if they need to be taught it. If it were innate knowledge that Ayn Rand’s philosophy was how people were supposed to live, then why was there any need to write all of these books about them? They would learn nothing from the books that they were not already aware of. If however you choose to say that people do need to be taught her philosophy (thus justifying the writing of the books) you then admit that to saying that Keating did nothing wrong because he was never taught Rand’s philosophy. Either way, it shows a potential flaw in the novel.
Peter Keating acted incorrectly based on his beliefs.
Ayn Rand wrote her books for the purpose of spreading her philosophy.
Peter Keating was never taught Objectivism.
Either Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism) is innate, or it not innate.
If Objectivism is innate then Ayn Rand had no purpose to write her books. (Contradiction with the second premise)
If Objectivism is not innate then Peter Keating cannot be blamed for his actions. (Contradiction of the first premise)
Therefore, either Ayn Rand had no reason to write her books (inconsistent), or Peter Keating cannot be blamed (inconsistent).
(Therefore either an inconsistency or an inconsistency)
Therefore, there is an inconsistency.
These types of inconsistent statements (to blame Keating) are very common among people, and they often go unnoticed and unchanged. One that is appropriate for what is happening in the United States right now and also irritates me is in regards to whether or not people should vote. The statement is of course the following: “You should vote because people died to give you the right to do so!” For a vast majority of people who say this, the statement is inconsistent with their other beliefs. The example that tends to be most effective is one that concludes that the person hates the terrorist groups for attacking the U.S. on September 11, 2001. When a person dies for a cause, they do so on their own accord for their own beliefs. They should not assume that others would share the same vision and hold whatever they died for sacred just because they felt it was. The terrorists attacked us in the mindset that they were committing possibly the most sacred act they possibly could. However, you do not see these same people (the ones telling people to vote) telling others to become terrorists just because another individual has dedicated himself or herself to the cause.
It seems to me that people are often all too eager to either accept an idea or to project and idea with little thought put into it. These tendencies lead to people putting out thoughtless ideas with others accepting these ideas. One potential cause of this appears as if it could be the current school system, which ironically enough is meant to help prevent this. Tight schedules, large workloads, and the stressed importance of grades often lead to the idea that an education is only measured in numerical values, and that the most obvious answer is always sufficient. While grades represent to some degree a person’s intellectual ability, most of it is dependent on the students desire to display their abilities to others (usually referred to instead as “work ethic”), whether it be teachers, peers, or colleges.
One example of this often seen would be class discussions. Questions are brought up that require a near immediate answer. This need for an immediate answer conveys the ideas to students that no thought is needed, since no time is given for it unless the person happened to have already thought of a response at an earlier time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
