In the socratic seminar questions for The Awakening, question number six contains a quote from Mademoiselles Reisz, in which she tells Edna that in order to succeed, "the artist must possess the courageous soul, the brave soul. The soul that dares and defies." I feel that not only does this apply to Edna, but is a generally true statement in regards to society in general, both literally and figuratively.
Edna always had a knack for painting and drawing, but could never quite get anything completely right. As the novel progressed, she became better and better with her art. Also as the novel progressed, she began to break from her social confinements. She did not obey her husband, she broke social rules, she did not care about what others thought of her or what they might say about her. She didn't keep up with callers, she went out when she pleased, she moved from her large extravegant house to a much smaller one, a "pidgeon house" if you will. Her art skill improves as her will becomes stronger and more defiant. Her will is a direct correlation to her soul and its courage to break its restraints. Could we have seen art from her after her death (a concept hard to grasp, I understand, but bear with me), as in if her death only moved her onto another world, her death (arguementatively) being a form of freedom and escape and her soul moving on bravely to a new world, then I believe the art would have been radiant.
Artists cannot have any success without first putting aside the desires of society and letting their art reflect the freedom, defiance, and daring nature of their soul. Figuratively, I feel that this is a general statement, saying that life, symbolized by art in this quote, can only be successfully lived through satisfying one's own desires and wishes. Life is only successful in the hands of those 'artists' who possess souls daring, defiant, brave, and courageous enough to do what they wish.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Monday, December 31, 2012
Cultural Relativism--The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Before I begin explaining my reaction to the article, I must first say that I found this article to be rivetng and insightful. I don't think I will ever throw it out, but add it to my collection of favorite pieces of literature of all sorts. Bravo, James Rachels!
Anywho, I found myself not agreeing with the theory of Cultural Relativism, but instead with the author's feelings towards it. I found myself agreeing that the theory is inherently correct and yet incorrect. Morality is all a strong matter of opinion, and opinion will always rely on culture, and within this culture is perhaps a different view of morality. It is, if you will, the "Circle of Societal Life"(copyright: Emily Perdue). However as a universe of differing societies, we hold some values as universal. Like Rachels said, telling the truth is a must in all functioning societies, for communication, a necessary action for society, would be worthless if no one could trust the words of another. As well, murder could never be an acceptable societal action, because everyone would be on guard, and therefore become recluse, tearing apart the society; and if people were to band together with those that they trust, then that would be the formation of a different society that believes that murder is wrong.
What I feel that this idea of Cultural Relativism is trying to do is expand the views and horizons of those set in their ways. To put my thoughts in as simple a form as possible, this is the typical childhood lecture that being different is not a bad thing, and that we must accept others despite their differences. I feel that this is the underlying message within the theory, and this is just the lecture put in terms for the adults who never seemed to get the message.
I do believe in opening one's eyes to different beliefs and cultures. This is where I find the theory to be inherently correct. What our society may percieve as an acceptable ritual, practice, or belief, may not be acceptable in other societies. This does not diminish the value of your beliefs, nor does it diminish the value of the opposing beliefs. This instead teaches us acceptance and respect for the cultures of others.
This is a wonderful article, and I can't wait to share it with friends and family who will take the time to expand their horizons.
Anywho, I found myself not agreeing with the theory of Cultural Relativism, but instead with the author's feelings towards it. I found myself agreeing that the theory is inherently correct and yet incorrect. Morality is all a strong matter of opinion, and opinion will always rely on culture, and within this culture is perhaps a different view of morality. It is, if you will, the "Circle of Societal Life"(copyright: Emily Perdue). However as a universe of differing societies, we hold some values as universal. Like Rachels said, telling the truth is a must in all functioning societies, for communication, a necessary action for society, would be worthless if no one could trust the words of another. As well, murder could never be an acceptable societal action, because everyone would be on guard, and therefore become recluse, tearing apart the society; and if people were to band together with those that they trust, then that would be the formation of a different society that believes that murder is wrong.
What I feel that this idea of Cultural Relativism is trying to do is expand the views and horizons of those set in their ways. To put my thoughts in as simple a form as possible, this is the typical childhood lecture that being different is not a bad thing, and that we must accept others despite their differences. I feel that this is the underlying message within the theory, and this is just the lecture put in terms for the adults who never seemed to get the message.
I do believe in opening one's eyes to different beliefs and cultures. This is where I find the theory to be inherently correct. What our society may percieve as an acceptable ritual, practice, or belief, may not be acceptable in other societies. This does not diminish the value of your beliefs, nor does it diminish the value of the opposing beliefs. This instead teaches us acceptance and respect for the cultures of others.
This is a wonderful article, and I can't wait to share it with friends and family who will take the time to expand their horizons.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Acute Emotion
Everyone seemed to completely abhor the novel Wuthering Heights. I, on the other hand, grew to enjoy it very much. People complain of the characters being unbearable and unlikeable. In this argument I both agreed and disagreed. None of the characters are overall likable creatures. Catherine Earnshaw is petty, selfish, rude, disrespectful, and has a blatant disregard for those who care for her. Edgar Linton is, in plain and simple terms, a wuss. He is childish, selfish, spoiled, and a crybaby. Heathcliff is practically evil. He tries to kill a small dog, he ruins the life of his true love's daughter, and is mean to the one person that he cannot live without. Although I cannot dispute their likability, I can make a valid argument for their good qualities. At times I could see beyond the exaggerated awfulness, and see human elements peeking through.
Edgar Linton, although whiny and fussy and annoying, is still a relatively good-natured person. He treats his daughter like a princess, and is very full of sweet and gentle love. Love comes in many different forms, and his is a gentle form. He tries his best to take care of those he loves, and this makes me see him in a better light.
When Catherine is speaking with Nelly on why she cannot marry Heathcliff, I finally saw her care for someone that wasn't herself. She tells her that Heathcliff and she have the same soul, and that they are one, even though she will not marry him. Even this, however is because she says that if she marries Edgar, then she can help Heathcliff gain a respectable status so she may marry him. Although she is considering the use of a loveless marriage, regardless, she is thinking of Heathcliff and his future, which bodily is not herself. She actually reminds me of my good friend. She is very rude, and says things that make even myself cringe occasionally. However, she is a very good friend, and tries to take care of those she loves, even when she is making fun of us and causing us a bit of anguish.
Heathcliff has a good feature as well: although it is essentially his downfall, he loves, deeply and passionately. He is tortured by love, and although the majority of my feelings towards him are pity for the various heartbreaking occasions within his life, there are two or three occasions that I feel that I understand him, which makes me feel a connection to him. When reunited with Catherine, and telling her that he cannot believe the pain and agony that she has put him through and forgives her regardless because he loves her so, I understand the pain that he went through and the want to just go back to the one you love, no matter the cost. When Heathcliff was crying out that Catherine's soul may not rest in peace, but instead walk the Earth forever by his side until he died, I found the sentiment to be beautiful and dear. I saw true love, not revenge. I saw a man tormented by the fact that he let his true love slip away from him. I saw a man that was broken. Everyone understands what it feels like to be broken. I can only imagine the pain he was going through when Catherine died. I saw a man who refused to have his love leave him. Is this healthy? Definitely not. Is this our first instinct? I believe so. He is human. This is his human trait. We want something, therefore we want it forever and ever, even when it is gone, we want it to still be there. We want our dead relatives to always be with us. We want our old friends to always be with us. We want our passed pets to stay with us. We may have healthier ways of dealing with this desire and the pain of the loss, but I understand him, and that makes me respect him.
So although none of the characters are likable, I still have found a way to somehow come around and care deeply about them all. Or perhaps I'm simply crazy.
Edgar Linton, although whiny and fussy and annoying, is still a relatively good-natured person. He treats his daughter like a princess, and is very full of sweet and gentle love. Love comes in many different forms, and his is a gentle form. He tries his best to take care of those he loves, and this makes me see him in a better light.
When Catherine is speaking with Nelly on why she cannot marry Heathcliff, I finally saw her care for someone that wasn't herself. She tells her that Heathcliff and she have the same soul, and that they are one, even though she will not marry him. Even this, however is because she says that if she marries Edgar, then she can help Heathcliff gain a respectable status so she may marry him. Although she is considering the use of a loveless marriage, regardless, she is thinking of Heathcliff and his future, which bodily is not herself. She actually reminds me of my good friend. She is very rude, and says things that make even myself cringe occasionally. However, she is a very good friend, and tries to take care of those she loves, even when she is making fun of us and causing us a bit of anguish.
Heathcliff has a good feature as well: although it is essentially his downfall, he loves, deeply and passionately. He is tortured by love, and although the majority of my feelings towards him are pity for the various heartbreaking occasions within his life, there are two or three occasions that I feel that I understand him, which makes me feel a connection to him. When reunited with Catherine, and telling her that he cannot believe the pain and agony that she has put him through and forgives her regardless because he loves her so, I understand the pain that he went through and the want to just go back to the one you love, no matter the cost. When Heathcliff was crying out that Catherine's soul may not rest in peace, but instead walk the Earth forever by his side until he died, I found the sentiment to be beautiful and dear. I saw true love, not revenge. I saw a man tormented by the fact that he let his true love slip away from him. I saw a man that was broken. Everyone understands what it feels like to be broken. I can only imagine the pain he was going through when Catherine died. I saw a man who refused to have his love leave him. Is this healthy? Definitely not. Is this our first instinct? I believe so. He is human. This is his human trait. We want something, therefore we want it forever and ever, even when it is gone, we want it to still be there. We want our dead relatives to always be with us. We want our old friends to always be with us. We want our passed pets to stay with us. We may have healthier ways of dealing with this desire and the pain of the loss, but I understand him, and that makes me respect him.
So although none of the characters are likable, I still have found a way to somehow come around and care deeply about them all. Or perhaps I'm simply crazy.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
A Villainous Hero
When reading Grendel, I noticed that the original hero of the story, Beowulf, was portrayed almost as a monster. This was quickly disregarded in class; if not disregarded, then simply ignored. I, however, found this to be a profound description within the story Grendel. While we had previously read of a strong, powerful, supposedly good hero, Beowulf instead, in his fight with Grendel, uttered evil, biting remarks to Grendel, and at one point was described to have (correct me if I am wrong) flames protruding from the edges of his mouth in addition to his evil grin. These are not the qualities that we would normally see within a hero. Would we not usually expect our hero to remain focused more on the task at hand? Wouldn't we expect our hero to be less cruel with his words than the villain would be? And surely we would not picture a flaming mouth on our hero, would we? I feel that the author was trying to convey a message to mankind. This was almost as if he was trying to tell us all to take a step back and take a closer look at those that we view as 'heroes.' This is not news to me, however. In our society, the 'good guy' isn't always very good. The rich and successful CEO at the top of the corporate ladder is flawless to the young, fresh, innocent intern. The intern doesn't wish to see the (hopefully metaphorical) blood that this CEO has spilt, the evil that he has done. To the intern, he is a hero. It's the view of the leader of the rival corporation that shows this intern what is really in the CEO: evil. In a sense, we are the fresh, blind intern. We see only what we wish to see, and we refuse to see the evil in what we once saw as good.
I feel that the author of Grendel is trying to convey the idea that those we see as heroes are not all good, and those we view as villains are not all bad. One must take a closer look at the situation provided per character.
I feel that the author of Grendel is trying to convey the idea that those we see as heroes are not all good, and those we view as villains are not all bad. One must take a closer look at the situation provided per character.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
What is Indepedence?
After struggling for about an hour trying to decide what to write, I stumbled across question 105 in the Socratic Seminar questions for the novel The Fountainhead. The question asks "What does The Fountainhead's message of independence mean to you personally, at this point in your life?" I am not positive whether or not I had the opportunity to expound upon my answer to such a delicate question. And as much as I wish to just pick an easier question to answer so I can finish and move onto my other homework, I can't help but think more and more about this question.
Rand's philosophy of independence shown in this novel could be interpreted in many different ways. It all depends on how you view it. But personally, at this very point in my life, I see a deep meaning that I wish to take into consideration each and every day of my life. To me, it says to always do what you were meant to do, to always go forward with life caring about yourself and not about other people (to a certain degree, of course, for Howard did care dearly for all of his friends); to me, it says be your own person no matter the cost, no matter the risk, no matter the consequences; it says to be true to yourself, always, never to settle for less, to always make your own path and to never let anyone else control your life, because it is always going to be your life, not anyone elses. This sense of independence, this necessity to life, isn't about doing everything by yourself. It isn't about doing things without the help of others, it isn't about making sure you can pay your own way through life and making sure that you are the only support in your life. It isn't about losing your human qualities to become your own person. To me, it's simpler than that.
To me, Ayn Rand is just trying to say, do what you know in your heart that you were meant to do. Be your own person by not caring what other people think or say about your life. Don't worry about what life throws at you. You were created to handle more than you could ever possibly imagine. Do what is going to make you happy; not what is going to make your family happy, not what will make your friends happy, not what is going to make anyone else in the world happy; just worry about your own happiness.
At this point in my life, I feel like the majority of my life is about pleasing others. Everything I say and do is to make other people happy, and I lose track of the things that make me happy. I lose track of my singing and my reading and my writing and my friendships and my sleeping; I lose track of being silly and dancing around like an idiot and looking up at the clouds in the day and gazing at the stars at night. I want so badly to focus on being my own person, I want so badly to make my life about me and no one else. I am young enough to begin to focus on independence, as soon as I am off on my own. As soon as I'm out on my own, I can begin to apply this message of individuality to my own life.
Rand's philosophy of independence shown in this novel could be interpreted in many different ways. It all depends on how you view it. But personally, at this very point in my life, I see a deep meaning that I wish to take into consideration each and every day of my life. To me, it says to always do what you were meant to do, to always go forward with life caring about yourself and not about other people (to a certain degree, of course, for Howard did care dearly for all of his friends); to me, it says be your own person no matter the cost, no matter the risk, no matter the consequences; it says to be true to yourself, always, never to settle for less, to always make your own path and to never let anyone else control your life, because it is always going to be your life, not anyone elses. This sense of independence, this necessity to life, isn't about doing everything by yourself. It isn't about doing things without the help of others, it isn't about making sure you can pay your own way through life and making sure that you are the only support in your life. It isn't about losing your human qualities to become your own person. To me, it's simpler than that.
To me, Ayn Rand is just trying to say, do what you know in your heart that you were meant to do. Be your own person by not caring what other people think or say about your life. Don't worry about what life throws at you. You were created to handle more than you could ever possibly imagine. Do what is going to make you happy; not what is going to make your family happy, not what will make your friends happy, not what is going to make anyone else in the world happy; just worry about your own happiness.
At this point in my life, I feel like the majority of my life is about pleasing others. Everything I say and do is to make other people happy, and I lose track of the things that make me happy. I lose track of my singing and my reading and my writing and my friendships and my sleeping; I lose track of being silly and dancing around like an idiot and looking up at the clouds in the day and gazing at the stars at night. I want so badly to focus on being my own person, I want so badly to make my life about me and no one else. I am young enough to begin to focus on independence, as soon as I am off on my own. As soon as I'm out on my own, I can begin to apply this message of individuality to my own life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)