Do you think media is aware if itself as media? That is, does the media in its delivery of content reflect a self-critical or self-aware role it has either in its constitution / composition or as part of an overarching genre? For this blog, find a newspaper article (or any other media source around you) on a topic of your choosing and ask if it contains a metatextual component. In this way, does it reconfigure or recognise itself as writing? If so, do you think it means to subvert, satirise, or accurately depict the content? This blog topic wants you to explore the different relationships that exist before our eyes in media, especially in relation to our role as reader/listener/viewer as well as to the role of the journalist or media source in general.
New Study Finds Humans May Have Some Capacity For Compassion
February 2, 2012 | ISSUE 48•05
TUCSON, AZ—A University of Arizona study published this week in the American Journal Of Sociology suggests that some adult humans may occasionally feel compassion, a trait scientists have long considered beyond the capacity of the species. "A small percentage of the roughly 900 subjects we observed seemed at times to exhibit genuine empathy toward another person experiencing either psychological or physical pain," said the study's lead author, Dr. Benjamin Trumble, who later added that these individuals did not appear as though they were looking to gain anything from their compassionate reactions, but, to the surprise of researchers, were simply concerned about another person's well-being. "Of course, we'll need to conduct further tests to rule out the possibility that these demonstrations weren't the result of statistical noise or the expression of some sort of very, very rare genetic mutation." The study also reaffirmed previous research indicating that 95 percent of individuals are capable of convincingly feigning compassion.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-study-finds-humans-may-have-some-capacity-for,27245/
I absolutely do believe that the media is self-aware in its delivery of content. The media targets peoples emotions; either presenting fearful, humorous, or joyous news. The news presented above is quite humorous. The article does not blatantly recognize itself as writing, but it does have meta textual content. The article definitely presents the illusion of news, but is highly satirical. Humans have compassion? No way! This article focuses on how although humans are capable of compassion, we do not show it very often. This leaves the reader chuckling to themselves and then asking, "hey wait a minute, I am a compassionate person...Aren't I...?" However, the article does seem to impose a slight truth in that many people pretend to be compassionate, perhaps due to social pressures.
Other works that have meta fictional content is in films such as The Princess Bride, Inception and Stranger Than Fiction. The novel If On A Winter's Night Traveler by Italo Calvino has a meta-fictional component in that it is about a reader reading a book. By having that meta fictional component the reader is able to feel an extra level of involvement in the article. However, with the news I do not feel that people share that same feeling of involvement; unless, of course, you are in the news. Although sometimes even if you are in the news the media can shift what you say or what you meant in a way that is more appealing to a particular audience.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Monday, 6 February 2012
Days Before The Internet...
Your first blog/journal topic is on radicalism in printing. For this, you will want to think about how technologies of (print) production shape our access to information. For example, consider Gutenberg, Martin Luther, William Blake to SOPA and beyond in your responses. Given our discussion on open-source, you may want to use "Wikipedia" as your first point of entry for each aforementioned person or political bill.
A long, long time ago, in a world I can’t even imagine…people passed down extensive stories verbally. In mythology class most stories such as The Odyssey, or many of the other stories learnt were passed down in such a fashion. As years passed, Johannes Gutenberg in the 15 century started a revolution- the age of the printed book in the west, which was a monumental step forward. Another important time for writing press was with Martin Luther who spoke out against certain practices in the Catholic Church. He wrote the Ninety-Five Theses and posted them on the door of the Church, this was a bold statement of Luther wanting to correct what he saw as mistakes within the Catholic Church. In class we discussed a few of William Blake’s works, during his time there was no internet. In order to talk about political issues without being blatantly rude our outspoken, one could write a book, a newspaper article, or in Blakes’ case write a poem.
Times before the internet seem hard to imagine. Having the ability to look up something in an instant is a luxury people would be lost without. The day Wikipedia did the ‘blackout’ and was completely disabled for viewers, I honestly probably would not have noticed unless it was talked about on the radio. I do go on Wikipedia to scope information, however, 95.3 was talking about it that morning and I probably would not have known unless they did. As they brought up SOPA they reminisced on the days before Wikipedia and finding information. They joked about going to the library and talking to the librarian for information. One of the girls commented “ya, you just go up to the librarian, press a few buttons and information comes out” something humorous along those lines. They could hardly recall the days before the internet. They pondered the days when people frequently used maps and tried to navigate around, now lots of a people have a GPS or even a GPS on their phone! In a way I feel that you could argue that free technology and software actually does not increase intelligence. Since there are cases of people simply copying and pasting information for homework or notes, they may not get to understand the topic in depth but just the basics. However, for my own reasoning and purposes I love the idea of free software and information. It is stress-free and convenient. With textbooks being so incredibly expensive I definitely have looked for other sources that offer the same amount of credited information. Wikipedia is generally considered not an academic source, but can be quite the starter for basic information, such as in this case for touching up on SOPA.
Radically speaking, nowadays if someone had a problem they could simply email a higher power (of course this depends on how high up you want to speak to, some political powers may be harder to reach than others). Or if they were trying to be more secluded about their thoughts they could write a book or perhaps even start a blog, something not as direct. It really depends on the society you live in, obviously the more developed the area the more flexibility to post thoughts or opinions online; Whereas some lesser developed countries may resort to writing a book, or perhaps even more basic a simple diary with all their thoughts. It is annoying to think that information may be kept away from viewers due to money; People wanting to copyright their goods so no one else can use it without paying. It almost seems selfish. In the article Hackers, Humanists, and Intellectuals: Lessons from the Open Source Revolution by Matthew Ogle, in the 1970’s:
“corporations discovered that software could be packaged and sold at handsome profits, especially since once development was complete, duplicating the end product (the computer program itself) was practically costless. (Prior to this “discovery,” hardware sales were the primary source of income for the vast majority of computer companies.) Of their academic sponsorship, corporate sponsors realized that the software they were paying for was valuable intellectual property to be protected, not shared. The corporations began copyrighting anything their sponsorship produced, restricting the right of programmers to release their code and build on the code of others. (Lowe 1)”
I understand intellectual property, but why not shared? What is the point of holding back? Is there a fear it would get into the wrong hands (whatever that may be)? People sometimes use money as a tool for scouting what product is better. If it is more expensive, it must be better right?! Not totally true, but sometimes it is a more secure product. I understand people need to make a living, hence why profiting off of software could be beneficial for some, and I may be reaching out to those who do not have enough money to stay up to date on the latest software and intellectual texts, but it could very well be those people who are unable to attain this information that could be the ones making a change in the future, so why hold them back?
A long, long time ago, in a world I can’t even imagine…people passed down extensive stories verbally. In mythology class most stories such as The Odyssey, or many of the other stories learnt were passed down in such a fashion. As years passed, Johannes Gutenberg in the 15 century started a revolution- the age of the printed book in the west, which was a monumental step forward. Another important time for writing press was with Martin Luther who spoke out against certain practices in the Catholic Church. He wrote the Ninety-Five Theses and posted them on the door of the Church, this was a bold statement of Luther wanting to correct what he saw as mistakes within the Catholic Church. In class we discussed a few of William Blake’s works, during his time there was no internet. In order to talk about political issues without being blatantly rude our outspoken, one could write a book, a newspaper article, or in Blakes’ case write a poem.
Times before the internet seem hard to imagine. Having the ability to look up something in an instant is a luxury people would be lost without. The day Wikipedia did the ‘blackout’ and was completely disabled for viewers, I honestly probably would not have noticed unless it was talked about on the radio. I do go on Wikipedia to scope information, however, 95.3 was talking about it that morning and I probably would not have known unless they did. As they brought up SOPA they reminisced on the days before Wikipedia and finding information. They joked about going to the library and talking to the librarian for information. One of the girls commented “ya, you just go up to the librarian, press a few buttons and information comes out” something humorous along those lines. They could hardly recall the days before the internet. They pondered the days when people frequently used maps and tried to navigate around, now lots of a people have a GPS or even a GPS on their phone! In a way I feel that you could argue that free technology and software actually does not increase intelligence. Since there are cases of people simply copying and pasting information for homework or notes, they may not get to understand the topic in depth but just the basics. However, for my own reasoning and purposes I love the idea of free software and information. It is stress-free and convenient. With textbooks being so incredibly expensive I definitely have looked for other sources that offer the same amount of credited information. Wikipedia is generally considered not an academic source, but can be quite the starter for basic information, such as in this case for touching up on SOPA.
Radically speaking, nowadays if someone had a problem they could simply email a higher power (of course this depends on how high up you want to speak to, some political powers may be harder to reach than others). Or if they were trying to be more secluded about their thoughts they could write a book or perhaps even start a blog, something not as direct. It really depends on the society you live in, obviously the more developed the area the more flexibility to post thoughts or opinions online; Whereas some lesser developed countries may resort to writing a book, or perhaps even more basic a simple diary with all their thoughts. It is annoying to think that information may be kept away from viewers due to money; People wanting to copyright their goods so no one else can use it without paying. It almost seems selfish. In the article Hackers, Humanists, and Intellectuals: Lessons from the Open Source Revolution by Matthew Ogle, in the 1970’s:
“corporations discovered that software could be packaged and sold at handsome profits, especially since once development was complete, duplicating the end product (the computer program itself) was practically costless. (Prior to this “discovery,” hardware sales were the primary source of income for the vast majority of computer companies.) Of their academic sponsorship, corporate sponsors realized that the software they were paying for was valuable intellectual property to be protected, not shared. The corporations began copyrighting anything their sponsorship produced, restricting the right of programmers to release their code and build on the code of others. (Lowe 1)”
I understand intellectual property, but why not shared? What is the point of holding back? Is there a fear it would get into the wrong hands (whatever that may be)? People sometimes use money as a tool for scouting what product is better. If it is more expensive, it must be better right?! Not totally true, but sometimes it is a more secure product. I understand people need to make a living, hence why profiting off of software could be beneficial for some, and I may be reaching out to those who do not have enough money to stay up to date on the latest software and intellectual texts, but it could very well be those people who are unable to attain this information that could be the ones making a change in the future, so why hold them back?
Monday, 14 November 2011
To Be Masculine, Or To Be Emasculated?
Masculinity / Masculinities
What is "masculinity"? What are "masculinities"? What defines these concepts? Use examples from Orwell's 1984 as well as those drawn from popular culture, literature, advertising, and so forth to furnish your response.
According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary, masculinity includes “the characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men.” Thus masculinities refer to something traditionally considered to be a characteristic of a male. Currently, some stereotypes of male characteristics may include being strong, brave and dashing, but through different eras and cultures characteristics of masculinity can differ.
Masculinity in a popular culture setting focuses on being fit, as well as a main focus on aesthetics. One leading man example is Brad Pitt, who some women want to be with and who some men want to be, which presents the idea that Brad Pitt portrays the desirable masculine qualities in that culture. However, in the past, for instance pre WW2 there was a large focus on males being the bread winner in the household. Contrasting males, who were not the bread winner, were sometimes viewed as having their masculinity emasculated. Today that same judgment can be seen, although it is less common, however, it appears some males still strive to produce a higher income than their partner which presents the idea that income, or type of job a male acquires reflects his masculinity.
In George Orwells 1984 it is interesting to see how the role of masculinity affects characters in the book. Winston, the protagonist, dislikes nearly all women, “especially the young and pretty ones” (12). He believed that it was always the women who were the strongest advocate supporters of the Party, “the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-outs of unorthodoxy” (12). This reflects a little of Winston’s masculinity which is reflected by the time period in the book; since he is the only one not ‘brainwashed’ by the Party, he feels a specific dislike not only for his society, but the women in his society who advocate the Party rules. It’s seems Winston feels smothered and is also being suppressed. One reason he did not like a girl behind him was due to the fact he “wanted to go to bed with her and would never be able to do so” (17). His masculinity is suppressed in the sense that he is unable to sexually express himself since it goes against the Junior Anti-Sex League and the Party. Eventually, Winston resorts on sneaking off with prostitutes to appease his desire although it is viewed against the law.
Winston creates Comrade Ogilvy who portrays the type of strong masculinity desired by the Party. Comrade Ogilvy joined the Spies at age six, “at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police” (49) and age seventeen he joined the Junior Anti-Sex League. At age nineteen he designed his own hand grenade and died at twenty-three. He didn’t drink or smoke; he was celibate and only discussed the Party philosophy. Comrade Ogilvy would pretty much be a Catholic Sylvester Stallone. Ironically, since the Party and Big Brother are so in control masculinity is suppressed and isn’t even allowed to surface; “‘Mrs.’ was a word somewhat discountenanced by the Party- you were supposed to call everyone ‘comrade’” (22).
According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary, masculinity includes “the characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men.” Thus masculinities refer to something traditionally considered to be a characteristic of a male. Currently, some stereotypes of male characteristics may include being strong, brave and dashing, but through different eras and cultures characteristics of masculinity can differ.
Masculinity in a popular culture setting focuses on being fit, as well as a main focus on aesthetics. One leading man example is Brad Pitt, who some women want to be with and who some men want to be, which presents the idea that Brad Pitt portrays the desirable masculine qualities in that culture. However, in the past, for instance pre WW2 there was a large focus on males being the bread winner in the household. Contrasting males, who were not the bread winner, were sometimes viewed as having their masculinity emasculated. Today that same judgment can be seen, although it is less common, however, it appears some males still strive to produce a higher income than their partner which presents the idea that income, or type of job a male acquires reflects his masculinity.
In George Orwells 1984 it is interesting to see how the role of masculinity affects characters in the book. Winston, the protagonist, dislikes nearly all women, “especially the young and pretty ones” (12). He believed that it was always the women who were the strongest advocate supporters of the Party, “the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-outs of unorthodoxy” (12). This reflects a little of Winston’s masculinity which is reflected by the time period in the book; since he is the only one not ‘brainwashed’ by the Party, he feels a specific dislike not only for his society, but the women in his society who advocate the Party rules. It’s seems Winston feels smothered and is also being suppressed. One reason he did not like a girl behind him was due to the fact he “wanted to go to bed with her and would never be able to do so” (17). His masculinity is suppressed in the sense that he is unable to sexually express himself since it goes against the Junior Anti-Sex League and the Party. Eventually, Winston resorts on sneaking off with prostitutes to appease his desire although it is viewed against the law.
Winston creates Comrade Ogilvy who portrays the type of strong masculinity desired by the Party. Comrade Ogilvy joined the Spies at age six, “at nine he had been a troop leader. At eleven he had denounced his uncle to the Thought Police” (49) and age seventeen he joined the Junior Anti-Sex League. At age nineteen he designed his own hand grenade and died at twenty-three. He didn’t drink or smoke; he was celibate and only discussed the Party philosophy. Comrade Ogilvy would pretty much be a Catholic Sylvester Stallone. Ironically, since the Party and Big Brother are so in control masculinity is suppressed and isn’t even allowed to surface; “‘Mrs.’ was a word somewhat discountenanced by the Party- you were supposed to call everyone ‘comrade’” (22).
Later when Winston goes to a restaurant he sees a beetle like man and notes that he finds everyone there unattractive. However, he thought that “if you don’t look around you, you would think the ideal physical type set up by the Party would be – tall, muscular youth and deep-bosomed maidens, blond hair, vital, sunburnt, and carefree- existed and even predominated,”(63) but that wasn’t that case, everyone he saw he thought was “small dark and ill favored” (63). One would think that the Party would try and have the most attractive predominated in society; however the Party is actually dramatically suppressing those views, leaving no room for freedom of expression.
Winston notes that “the ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible and glittering- a world of steel and concrete of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting- three hundred million people all with the same face” (77) It is this view of extreme conformity that destroys masculinity.
Winston notes that “the ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible and glittering- a world of steel and concrete of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting- three hundred million people all with the same face” (77) It is this view of extreme conformity that destroys masculinity.
Overall, depending on the era and cultural settings, masculinity can be suppressed, or shaped however a particular society finds desirable. However, either way there can be large effects on individuals and consequences in that society.
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Robots
For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, can we be trusted to take care of ourselves?
After looking at Curtis and Freud’s views on civilisation, it appears to be highly unlikely as well as risky to let humans take care of themselves. At the beginning of the video, Century of the Self, it states that, “this series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.” When looking at Curtis’ video Century of the Self you can dramatically see how people are practically brainwashed as consumers. A Wall Street Banker, Paul Mazer, declares "we must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture” (Century of the Self) in the 1930’s; this statement expresses the particular values in a civilisation and whether it is for the benefit of the society, or not is another matter. It demonstrates the control that civilisation has in directing individuals how they want them to live.
Looking back on the stock market crash, people needed to go back to consuming what was a necessity in their lives and it was devastating. It was as if once you took that step forward into a glamorous consumer lifestyle, it is difficult to go back to a simple way of being. Obviously there were a lot more complexities to it, but I’m trying to propose that it’s hard for people once they live a materialistic lifestyle to go back to a simple necessity-consumption-only lifestyle. The government and media have such a powerful influence in pushing people to move forward, thus it makes it extremely challenging for some to genuinely take care of themselves when now people rely heavily on something they cannot control.
For example, now with cell phones when someone’s cell breaks it is dramatically compared to the end of the world for some people and they feel as though they have lost all communication with people out of their sight; which is horrifying for them. However, weren’t people surviving just fine less than fifty years ago without them? People have built such reliance on technology and for possessions to work instantly that when they break down they don’t know what to do anymore. This I believe to actually hinder human development, some people are losing their ‘street smarts’ so to speak, or even their common sense.
Freud suggests that to be involved in civilization an individual must sacrifice some personal happiness in order to promote the interests of social unity and cohesion in their society. He believed we would be completely out of control with our true impulses, thus to be civilized we must do without the two vital claims to our instincts: sex and violence. Clearly, Freud believed we cannot trust ourselves and if someone is to participate in a society they must be civilised. Since people must live together in society, it is hard to strive for happiness while trying to avoid suffering or displeasure by not indulging in our impulses.
Overall, I’d like to believe that humans can be trusted to take care of themselves, but after learning of Curtis and Freud’s views it seems as though it is virtually impossible for individuals to exist in society and live completely harmoniously with their impulses. Since civilisation controls these ‘dangerous’ impulses, it demonstrates civilisation’s influence in the ability to control individual lifestyles to an extent (example, making them consumers). After watching the video, I thought that it was a saddening picture, watching people being directed into a way of life like robots. However, I think now if people were to start being trusted to take care of ourselves, we would not know what to do, or where to start.
After looking at Curtis and Freud’s views on civilisation, it appears to be highly unlikely as well as risky to let humans take care of themselves. At the beginning of the video, Century of the Self, it states that, “this series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.” When looking at Curtis’ video Century of the Self you can dramatically see how people are practically brainwashed as consumers. A Wall Street Banker, Paul Mazer, declares "we must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture” (Century of the Self) in the 1930’s; this statement expresses the particular values in a civilisation and whether it is for the benefit of the society, or not is another matter. It demonstrates the control that civilisation has in directing individuals how they want them to live.
Looking back on the stock market crash, people needed to go back to consuming what was a necessity in their lives and it was devastating. It was as if once you took that step forward into a glamorous consumer lifestyle, it is difficult to go back to a simple way of being. Obviously there were a lot more complexities to it, but I’m trying to propose that it’s hard for people once they live a materialistic lifestyle to go back to a simple necessity-consumption-only lifestyle. The government and media have such a powerful influence in pushing people to move forward, thus it makes it extremely challenging for some to genuinely take care of themselves when now people rely heavily on something they cannot control.
For example, now with cell phones when someone’s cell breaks it is dramatically compared to the end of the world for some people and they feel as though they have lost all communication with people out of their sight; which is horrifying for them. However, weren’t people surviving just fine less than fifty years ago without them? People have built such reliance on technology and for possessions to work instantly that when they break down they don’t know what to do anymore. This I believe to actually hinder human development, some people are losing their ‘street smarts’ so to speak, or even their common sense.
Freud suggests that to be involved in civilization an individual must sacrifice some personal happiness in order to promote the interests of social unity and cohesion in their society. He believed we would be completely out of control with our true impulses, thus to be civilized we must do without the two vital claims to our instincts: sex and violence. Clearly, Freud believed we cannot trust ourselves and if someone is to participate in a society they must be civilised. Since people must live together in society, it is hard to strive for happiness while trying to avoid suffering or displeasure by not indulging in our impulses.
Overall, I’d like to believe that humans can be trusted to take care of themselves, but after learning of Curtis and Freud’s views it seems as though it is virtually impossible for individuals to exist in society and live completely harmoniously with their impulses. Since civilisation controls these ‘dangerous’ impulses, it demonstrates civilisation’s influence in the ability to control individual lifestyles to an extent (example, making them consumers). After watching the video, I thought that it was a saddening picture, watching people being directed into a way of life like robots. However, I think now if people were to start being trusted to take care of ourselves, we would not know what to do, or where to start.
Monday, 10 October 2011
So This Is Where Obi Wan Kenobi Gets It From!
Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?
Although it is difficult to decipher whether Socrates is an extreme martyr, or not, I believe Socrates is a man willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs and is not milking the martyr role. However, I want to be clear that I do not believe he is seeking out his death. Socrates believes that “wherever a man’s station is, whether he has chosen it of his own will, or whether he has been placed by his commander, there it is his duty to remain and face the danger without thinking of death or of any other except disgrace” (34). This shows how Socrates station and path selected by the gods has leaded him here, to court, and he is going to continue his way of being with his beliefs even with the setback of the wrongful accusations.
In court, Socrates informs the jury about his process and cross-examining people who consider themselves wise. His results found that neither his subject nor he knew anything worth knowing, but his subject thinks he has knowledge when he really does not and Socrates does not think he has any; thus, Socrates is clearly wiser than his subject for not believing he has something when he does not. Socrates later compares his results with views on death, he says “for death my friends, is only to think of ourselves wise without really being wise, for it is to think that we know what we do not know;”(35) people do not know if death is the greatest thing for a person, but instead fear it as if it’s the worst evil. This shows ignorance thinking that we know what we do not know.
Socrates goes on to say he does not “care a straw for death,” but does care “very much about not doing anything unjust or impious” (39).Socrates’ defense is that he never did anything unjust, but it is the anger of those he proved to have little wisdom that has brought him to court. Socrates does believe in the gods and refutes all his accusations and actually flips it on Meletus accusing him of charges. Socrates knows if he is to be convicted it is due to prejudice and resentment, but he continues defending himself and trying to convince the court of the truth. He is not looking for the court’s sympathy during his trial. This is clear since he informs them that even if he is to be acquitted he will not stop his process, he clearly states “I will not change my way of life; no, not if I have to die for it many times” (36). By stating this I feel he is able to receive some admiration, thus his votes which are closer together than imagined.
In the end, Socrates reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi from Star Wars, in the sense of how calm and collective he is during his trial. However, Socrates ‘jedi mind trick’ is his use of language and asking questions to prove his point. Both of the wise men finish their lives defending their beliefs and educating their followers. This leaves the wise men gone, but their followers carrying on their messages. In all, I believe Socrates was ready and willing to die for his personal (justice) and philosophical (wisdom) beliefs.
Although it is difficult to decipher whether Socrates is an extreme martyr, or not, I believe Socrates is a man willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs and is not milking the martyr role. However, I want to be clear that I do not believe he is seeking out his death. Socrates believes that “wherever a man’s station is, whether he has chosen it of his own will, or whether he has been placed by his commander, there it is his duty to remain and face the danger without thinking of death or of any other except disgrace” (34). This shows how Socrates station and path selected by the gods has leaded him here, to court, and he is going to continue his way of being with his beliefs even with the setback of the wrongful accusations.
In court, Socrates informs the jury about his process and cross-examining people who consider themselves wise. His results found that neither his subject nor he knew anything worth knowing, but his subject thinks he has knowledge when he really does not and Socrates does not think he has any; thus, Socrates is clearly wiser than his subject for not believing he has something when he does not. Socrates later compares his results with views on death, he says “for death my friends, is only to think of ourselves wise without really being wise, for it is to think that we know what we do not know;”(35) people do not know if death is the greatest thing for a person, but instead fear it as if it’s the worst evil. This shows ignorance thinking that we know what we do not know.
Socrates goes on to say he does not “care a straw for death,” but does care “very much about not doing anything unjust or impious” (39).Socrates’ defense is that he never did anything unjust, but it is the anger of those he proved to have little wisdom that has brought him to court. Socrates does believe in the gods and refutes all his accusations and actually flips it on Meletus accusing him of charges. Socrates knows if he is to be convicted it is due to prejudice and resentment, but he continues defending himself and trying to convince the court of the truth. He is not looking for the court’s sympathy during his trial. This is clear since he informs them that even if he is to be acquitted he will not stop his process, he clearly states “I will not change my way of life; no, not if I have to die for it many times” (36). By stating this I feel he is able to receive some admiration, thus his votes which are closer together than imagined.
In the end, Socrates reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi from Star Wars, in the sense of how calm and collective he is during his trial. However, Socrates ‘jedi mind trick’ is his use of language and asking questions to prove his point. Both of the wise men finish their lives defending their beliefs and educating their followers. This leaves the wise men gone, but their followers carrying on their messages. In all, I believe Socrates was ready and willing to die for his personal (justice) and philosophical (wisdom) beliefs.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Original-The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
Sorry for the confusion! I revised my other Omelas post after Patrick commented on it, but here is my original copy.
Question One: If you were a citizen of Omelas, would you stay or would you walk away?
After my first read of the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K Le Guin, I thought that perhaps the people who walked away from the town were taking a plunge into their own exile the same alienation which the imprisoned child in the town faces. I also considered though, wouldn’t that make them cowards for just walking away from the town? Simply leaving the child there and frankly running away from their problems? I agree with the second option, that the people who walk away from Omelas are running away from their problems without doing anything to help the situation- it is selfish and a useless effort to fix any issue. However, the ones who stay in Omelas are also selfish in the sense that they just learn to live with the poor child’s emotional and physical abuse and believe that the child’s suffering keeps their town flourishing.
Thus, if I were a citizen of Omelas I would like to believe that I would be heroic, take the child with me and leave forever, or perhaps take the child out of its claustrophobic room and stay within the town and face consequences there. Maybe nothing would change in the town; maybe everything will still flourish and the child can live freely. It is a Utopia isn’t it? So why not?
In order to fully answer my question of “would I walk away from Omelas?” I need to reflect on question number three as well: to what extent is Omelas an analogy of our own society? Simply because although I say I want to be heroic, Omelas can be related to our modern society. The fact is we all wear clothes (at least the majority of the time). Where do those clothes come from? Maybe some from your grandma, but others come from sweatshops in undeveloped areas of the world in which some employees are young children. Do people still wear clothes? Yes, including myself. My point is that I’m not doing anything about it, I could boycott Nike or another name brand, but honestly I do not know which stores exactly do sell clothes by underdeveloped areas, probably quite a few though. This makes me stuck in my own Omelas in which I know the problem exists, but I’m not truly doing anything about it. I absolutely hate to admit that sad truth, but I believe I am also stuck in Omelas.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
*Sigh* "My Hero!"
There are many people that have touched my life without me ever meeting them and I definitely view them as heroes; for instance, people who have fought for freedom or equality rights, or simply standing up for what they believe in. However, I feel like it will be easier for me to describe what a hero is after I describe my mother. I love both my parents, they are amazing, but my mother and I have a complex relationship; yet I absolutely view her as my personal hero- guardian angel like.The fact that she is able to juggle so much at a time with work (a boss who is a total nut), a family (a large and obnoxious one) and everything that comes along with those things is incredible. It may not sound like a lot, but believe me, my mother puts up with a lot from her work and still manages to touch peoples' lives every day at the senior's home she works at. She takes care of everyone at work and out of work. That's a general hero trait isn't it? - Selflessness? Well that's my mama! I don't have a lot of time to right about this, and plus I admit it is quite sappy, but this is my very brief overview about one of my heroes. I feel as though this may across mushy, or lame, but when I think of a hero in my head, she is definitely one of the people that pop into my head. So why not write about her? The sad thing is that I don't think she knows that she's viewed this way in my mind. From all our fighting I'm sure it may even come to a shock at first to her!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)