We are finishing out the 3rd quarter and beginning of the 4th quarter with a unit called "Monsters and Ourselves." One question that I have been pondering is: Is there a monster in everyone? My answer.....Yes.
In reference to society, as was mentioned in class discussions, when we are children, we do bad things (steal toys, use physical means against others, throw temper tantrums when we don't get our way, etc.) Our parents or guardians are there to help teach us to not do those things. In essence, to teach us to be good. In this way, we are hiding or pushing away the evil nature we have in favor of the good nature society expects of us. When people go "crazy" or commit crimes, they are allowing the evil part of themselves to escape, similar to childhood. In my opinion, we are all evil, but some learn to be good and choose to be good over evil. While others still choose evil over good.
In reference to literature, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson shows the connection and separation between good and evil. Dr. Jekyll knows that he has a weakness when it comes to the two, so he chooses to use scientific means to separate good and evil in himself in two personalities. When he is Dr. Jekyll, he is good. When he is Mr. Hyde, he is evil, and does things like assault little girls. Dr. Jekyll almost has a high off of the actions Mr. Hyde does. He chooses to become evil because when he remembers what Hyde does, he wishes to become Hyde again. In this way, he is choosing evil over good.
So, yes, there is evil in everyone. Someone could choose to do evil at any time. Although, as you said Mrs. Burnett, most of us are not one step away from murder. Choosing evil could be as simple as lying to your parents, saying something nasty to your siblings, or starting a rumor about someone in high school.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
It's 2012 & Men Still Have These Ideas? What Are They Thinking?!
Over some time in class, we have focused on a women's literature unit. We have read pieces like A Doll House, The Awakening, A Room of One's Own, A Thousand Splendid Suns, and The Picture of Dorian Gray. No other class I've been in has focused this much on analyzing this aspect of women in history, not even history class. It was eye opening, and really made me think. I've always been interested in learning about the roles of women in society in the past compared to the present, and it was interesting to hear everyone else's opinions. The unit kept my attention every minute, and I'm so glad it was included in the course. It was definitely my favorite part of AP English class so far this year.
One specific thing we talked about that affected me the most in the unit was the "Thoughts on Women- A Timeline" worksheet. It gave quotes from famous people from 1500 B.C. to present day (2007). It was hard to believe that a lot of the negative feelings towards women are still around today. In 1500 B.C., The Code of Manu said "In childhood a woman must be subject to ther father; in youth to her husband; when her husband is head, to her sons. A woman must never be free of subjugation." And in 2007, an Oxford Area High School Teacher said "Couldn't the moral decline of our country be tied to women entering the work place?" All of the quotes on the page suggest the following points:
So much time passed in between the two, but the ideas are still the same. In reference to this quote in modern society, teachers are supposed to be there to support, assist, and encourage every single one of their pupils despite race, gender, disability, etc. They are supposed to help the other adults in the students' lives to instill the values, principles, and mindset it takes to be successful and happy in life. I agree with what you said in class, Mrs. Burnett, that the girl who this quote was aimed at with an interest in chemistry will always remember this. I have no doubt it made her question things, maybe her career choices, maybe herself, maybe even what she was capable of compared to a man.
In reference to A Doll House, the comments throughout the ages reflect ideas in the play. A woman was meant to have three spheres in her existence: wife, mother, and daughter. They were supposed to assist the nanny in raising the children, keep up with the running of the house, and appease the men in her life. No one thought they were intelligent beings, capable of everything that men were. Nora, the central protagonist, was naive. innocent, playful, and acted stupidly. She was the epitome of what a woman was supposed to be back then. She relied solely on her husband, Torvald Helmer, for everything: his opinions, money, and giving her a home. Nora was fine with being patronized until she had a realization that her husband does not take her seriously and won't stick with her through hard times, and mistakes she makes. She then proceeds to live him and her children so that she may go find herself.
Even though there are still some prejudices against women that I will never agree with, I am very thankful that most of them are gone. We have so many freedoms that women in the past were not afforded.
Women = Men.
One specific thing we talked about that affected me the most in the unit was the "Thoughts on Women- A Timeline" worksheet. It gave quotes from famous people from 1500 B.C. to present day (2007). It was hard to believe that a lot of the negative feelings towards women are still around today. In 1500 B.C., The Code of Manu said "In childhood a woman must be subject to ther father; in youth to her husband; when her husband is head, to her sons. A woman must never be free of subjugation." And in 2007, an Oxford Area High School Teacher said "Couldn't the moral decline of our country be tied to women entering the work place?" All of the quotes on the page suggest the following points:
- women should never be free to decide for themselves
- women cannot be trusted for anything, especially making decisions for the sake of the continuation of the world
- women must accept the feelings of their husband, not their own
- women are not "good crops" but "weeds"
- women should be beaten so they'll behave
- women should speak very little
- women are below men and above children
- women were given too much power by nature (producing children), and should not be given any more
- women couldn't possibly understand politics, and women's suffrage would allow women to take over the government. instead, women should let their husband/father/sons represent them while voting
So much time passed in between the two, but the ideas are still the same. In reference to this quote in modern society, teachers are supposed to be there to support, assist, and encourage every single one of their pupils despite race, gender, disability, etc. They are supposed to help the other adults in the students' lives to instill the values, principles, and mindset it takes to be successful and happy in life. I agree with what you said in class, Mrs. Burnett, that the girl who this quote was aimed at with an interest in chemistry will always remember this. I have no doubt it made her question things, maybe her career choices, maybe herself, maybe even what she was capable of compared to a man.
In reference to A Doll House, the comments throughout the ages reflect ideas in the play. A woman was meant to have three spheres in her existence: wife, mother, and daughter. They were supposed to assist the nanny in raising the children, keep up with the running of the house, and appease the men in her life. No one thought they were intelligent beings, capable of everything that men were. Nora, the central protagonist, was naive. innocent, playful, and acted stupidly. She was the epitome of what a woman was supposed to be back then. She relied solely on her husband, Torvald Helmer, for everything: his opinions, money, and giving her a home. Nora was fine with being patronized until she had a realization that her husband does not take her seriously and won't stick with her through hard times, and mistakes she makes. She then proceeds to live him and her children so that she may go find herself.
Even though there are still some prejudices against women that I will never agree with, I am very thankful that most of them are gone. We have so many freedoms that women in the past were not afforded.
Women = Men.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
An Attack on Our Psychological Well-Being
In my opinion, "Dead Poet's Society" is one of those rare movies where viewers of all ages can learn a lesson. Mr. Keating's character, played by Robin Williams, is one of those teachers that a student will never forget. His teaching style was unique, and made an impact on the boys' lives at the boarding school. He applied real life situations and lessons to the poetry he was teaching. He taught them things like: do what you love and makes you happy, follow your dreams, and be who you want to be. The boys grasped his teaching and took it to heart. It truly made an impact on their lives. It was no ordinary English class.
Mr. Keating gave hope to the boys in a place where they were forced to conform, whether to their parents, peers, or school administrators. He taught them the phrase "Carpe Diem," or "Seize the Day." The boys always remembered this, and used it as strength to stray from actions they would usually take in effect of fear or appeasing other people. For example, Knox Overstreet, goes out on a limb to try to woo the "girl of his dreams," even though she has a big, burly, violent, inconsiderate boyfriend who beats him up at a party because he kisses the girl's forehead. He truly loves her, while the boyfriend does not. This is why he succeeds in getting the girl at the end, an example that not conforming can have postive outcomes. Another example would be in regards to Neil Perry. Even though his mother and father were stern about him becoming a doctor, the boy went against their wishes because of his passion for acting. He was explaining to Todd Anderson, his roommate, that his reasoning was backed up by the famous quote Keating had taught them. His parents utterly disapprove of his choice. They take him home and inform Neil that he has been enrolled in a military school and will become a doctor, sans acting. At this point, Neil loses his gumption. He will not fully explain to his parents what he is feeling, therefore conforming. Any hope that the boy has at this point vanishes, and he kills himself. The only light at the boarding school, besides friendship, was their relationship with Mr. Keating. "Captain's" influence on the boys was blamed for Neil's suicide, and he is terminated from the school. The boys are forced to conform in the way that they were forced to sign a petition saying that Keating was the reason things went wrong. In reality, the school and boys were being selfish and simply looking for a scapegoat.
The lasting image the movie leaves with us is the boys in the English classroom. The headmaster has taken over the English class, and he is teaching the topics Keating refused to cover as he gathers his personal belongings. The students, especially Todd Anderson, hate the fact that they are seeing the last of their beloved teacher. One by one, they begin to stand on their desks saying "O Captain, My Captain," as a tribute to him, rebelling against the orders of the headmaster.
The movie clearly exhibits my conclusion:
Conformity is an attack on our psychological well-being.
Every time something bad happens in the movie (Neil's suicide, Keating's termination), it is a negative result of conforming. Everything good that happens (Dead Poet's Society, a class in school that they enjoy, Knox winning a girl's heart) is a result of not doing what society expects of you, but doing what makes you happy & what you believe in. The stress of doing what everyone else wants you to do is not good for your mental health. You are always anxious, worried, and trying to do things that you don't want or need to do. It's like living up to expectations that you don't understand.
The lesson that should have been taken from this movie-
To Kids: Do what you love, say what you mean, be unique
To Adults: If you love your children (like most do), let them be their own person, or they'll be miserable
This movie can be directly related to The Awakening by Kate Chopin, and Edna's suicide. Edna did not ever conform to what society expected her to be. Her whole being was supposed to be made up of mother, wife, and daughter. She rebelled against everyone's expectations and her responsibilities from beginning to end. Edna experiences her awakening at the ocean when she first learns to swim. It is something she always wanted to learn and do. She saw that she could do it on her own, and she didn’t need a husband, or anyone else, to accomplish this. Through this experience, she gains power for herself, and become in possession of her own body and soul. She feels that there is no other way to live without conforming, or becoming an outcast, so she committs suicide. This hopelessness is very similiar to Neil's situation. They both can't live happily, so they give up. Like I said before, conformity is an attack on our psychological health....In my opinion, Neil and Edna both go crazy in their instances. I understand SOME of their reasoning, but do not at all agree that suicide, and leaving friends, family, and children behind was the right choice whatsoever.
In modern society, the movie "The Blind Side" is a real-life story of how ignoring conformity's grasp can be an extremely positive thing. Michael Ore grew up in a place where he was told he would never be anything. He lived in the slums, was poor and uneducated, had no opportunities, no real family, and no unhidden talents. His friend Marcus conformed to what he was told and followed the "gangster" life. This obviously resulted in a negative life for the fellow. Ore, on the other hand, accepted much help to improve his intelligence, social skills, and athleticism. He learned how to trust, and love other people. He got into college with a football scholarship. He became part of a family. He became a professional football player. His whole life changed when everyone up until his new family told him he couldn't do it. Those few people believed in him enough to give him the strength to erase the thoughts that people pounded into his mind and make something of himself.
Mr. Keating gave hope to the boys in a place where they were forced to conform, whether to their parents, peers, or school administrators. He taught them the phrase "Carpe Diem," or "Seize the Day." The boys always remembered this, and used it as strength to stray from actions they would usually take in effect of fear or appeasing other people. For example, Knox Overstreet, goes out on a limb to try to woo the "girl of his dreams," even though she has a big, burly, violent, inconsiderate boyfriend who beats him up at a party because he kisses the girl's forehead. He truly loves her, while the boyfriend does not. This is why he succeeds in getting the girl at the end, an example that not conforming can have postive outcomes. Another example would be in regards to Neil Perry. Even though his mother and father were stern about him becoming a doctor, the boy went against their wishes because of his passion for acting. He was explaining to Todd Anderson, his roommate, that his reasoning was backed up by the famous quote Keating had taught them. His parents utterly disapprove of his choice. They take him home and inform Neil that he has been enrolled in a military school and will become a doctor, sans acting. At this point, Neil loses his gumption. He will not fully explain to his parents what he is feeling, therefore conforming. Any hope that the boy has at this point vanishes, and he kills himself. The only light at the boarding school, besides friendship, was their relationship with Mr. Keating. "Captain's" influence on the boys was blamed for Neil's suicide, and he is terminated from the school. The boys are forced to conform in the way that they were forced to sign a petition saying that Keating was the reason things went wrong. In reality, the school and boys were being selfish and simply looking for a scapegoat.
The lasting image the movie leaves with us is the boys in the English classroom. The headmaster has taken over the English class, and he is teaching the topics Keating refused to cover as he gathers his personal belongings. The students, especially Todd Anderson, hate the fact that they are seeing the last of their beloved teacher. One by one, they begin to stand on their desks saying "O Captain, My Captain," as a tribute to him, rebelling against the orders of the headmaster.
The movie clearly exhibits my conclusion:
Conformity is an attack on our psychological well-being.
Every time something bad happens in the movie (Neil's suicide, Keating's termination), it is a negative result of conforming. Everything good that happens (Dead Poet's Society, a class in school that they enjoy, Knox winning a girl's heart) is a result of not doing what society expects of you, but doing what makes you happy & what you believe in. The stress of doing what everyone else wants you to do is not good for your mental health. You are always anxious, worried, and trying to do things that you don't want or need to do. It's like living up to expectations that you don't understand.
The lesson that should have been taken from this movie-
To Kids: Do what you love, say what you mean, be unique
To Adults: If you love your children (like most do), let them be their own person, or they'll be miserable
This movie can be directly related to The Awakening by Kate Chopin, and Edna's suicide. Edna did not ever conform to what society expected her to be. Her whole being was supposed to be made up of mother, wife, and daughter. She rebelled against everyone's expectations and her responsibilities from beginning to end. Edna experiences her awakening at the ocean when she first learns to swim. It is something she always wanted to learn and do. She saw that she could do it on her own, and she didn’t need a husband, or anyone else, to accomplish this. Through this experience, she gains power for herself, and become in possession of her own body and soul. She feels that there is no other way to live without conforming, or becoming an outcast, so she committs suicide. This hopelessness is very similiar to Neil's situation. They both can't live happily, so they give up. Like I said before, conformity is an attack on our psychological health....In my opinion, Neil and Edna both go crazy in their instances. I understand SOME of their reasoning, but do not at all agree that suicide, and leaving friends, family, and children behind was the right choice whatsoever.
In modern society, the movie "The Blind Side" is a real-life story of how ignoring conformity's grasp can be an extremely positive thing. Michael Ore grew up in a place where he was told he would never be anything. He lived in the slums, was poor and uneducated, had no opportunities, no real family, and no unhidden talents. His friend Marcus conformed to what he was told and followed the "gangster" life. This obviously resulted in a negative life for the fellow. Ore, on the other hand, accepted much help to improve his intelligence, social skills, and athleticism. He learned how to trust, and love other people. He got into college with a football scholarship. He became part of a family. He became a professional football player. His whole life changed when everyone up until his new family told him he couldn't do it. Those few people believed in him enough to give him the strength to erase the thoughts that people pounded into his mind and make something of himself.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
In the article "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" by James Rachels, the differences between societies and their cultures is discussed. There are major differences between moral codes that are acceptable and unacceptable. The idea that there are universal truths in ethics is a myth. There is no measure of right and wrong other than the standards of one's society. Although cultures have differences, there is less disagreement than it seems, and all cultures have some values in common.
The author feels that Cultural Relativism rests on an invalid argument, that it has consequences that make it implausible on its face, and that the extent of cultural disagreement is far less than it implies. In addition to these mistakes, someone can also learn lessons from the theory. According to Rachels, it "warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard....", and teaches us to keep an open mind.
In relevance to literature, I thought I could make a good comparison to the values in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." In this poem, a man cowers before his fear of telling a woman he loves her. He justifies his inaction by concluding that he has plenty of time, but ends up growing old and alone, because he does not gather the courage to confess his feelings. The differences between old love and modern love are almost like the differences between the moral codes of various cultures because, in my opinion, the past and present are different "cultures." In past times, people looked at love/marriage as more of a contract, arrangement, or way to gain wealth or higher social status. Although they did not love each other (sometimes at first, sometimes never), there were no divorces. Love was not an option, and many marriages were arranged for the above reasons. In current times, most marriages or relationships are started because of feelings of infatuation or love, and caring about someone. Although these emotions are genuine, some people move too quickly, and rush into marriage. Not knowing someone fully leads to our high divorce rates nowadays.
In relevance to society, a recent scandal can be attributed to both old and modern love: the divorce of Kim Kardashian and Chris Humphreys after a mere 79 days of marriage. It is old love in the way that many people are thinking it was just a publicity stunt, much like when people had arranged marriages for social status. It is modern love in the way that they took their relationship too quickly, thinking they were in love and had strong feelings for each other. They did not consider the seriousness of marriage, and then threw it away like it was nothing. Now they are fighting over Kardashian returning her engagement ring, designed by Lorraine Schwartz, which features a 16.5 carat emerald cut center stone flanked by two 2-carat trapezoids ... for a grand total of 20.5 carats. It is worth a whopping $2 million. I guess it's true....money really doesn't buy happiness!
Happy New Year!!!! :)
The author feels that Cultural Relativism rests on an invalid argument, that it has consequences that make it implausible on its face, and that the extent of cultural disagreement is far less than it implies. In addition to these mistakes, someone can also learn lessons from the theory. According to Rachels, it "warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard....", and teaches us to keep an open mind.
In relevance to literature, I thought I could make a good comparison to the values in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." In this poem, a man cowers before his fear of telling a woman he loves her. He justifies his inaction by concluding that he has plenty of time, but ends up growing old and alone, because he does not gather the courage to confess his feelings. The differences between old love and modern love are almost like the differences between the moral codes of various cultures because, in my opinion, the past and present are different "cultures." In past times, people looked at love/marriage as more of a contract, arrangement, or way to gain wealth or higher social status. Although they did not love each other (sometimes at first, sometimes never), there were no divorces. Love was not an option, and many marriages were arranged for the above reasons. In current times, most marriages or relationships are started because of feelings of infatuation or love, and caring about someone. Although these emotions are genuine, some people move too quickly, and rush into marriage. Not knowing someone fully leads to our high divorce rates nowadays.
In relevance to society, a recent scandal can be attributed to both old and modern love: the divorce of Kim Kardashian and Chris Humphreys after a mere 79 days of marriage. It is old love in the way that many people are thinking it was just a publicity stunt, much like when people had arranged marriages for social status. It is modern love in the way that they took their relationship too quickly, thinking they were in love and had strong feelings for each other. They did not consider the seriousness of marriage, and then threw it away like it was nothing. Now they are fighting over Kardashian returning her engagement ring, designed by Lorraine Schwartz, which features a 16.5 carat emerald cut center stone flanked by two 2-carat trapezoids ... for a grand total of 20.5 carats. It is worth a whopping $2 million. I guess it's true....money really doesn't buy happiness!
Happy New Year!!!! :)
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Disagreeing with Existentalism
This past week we started to read "Waiting for Godot" in class. So far, I'm really enjoying it, even though I don't agree with the philosophy. It's absurdness makes it quite funny in a unique way, despite the existentalist spin. In reality, the writer is trying to point out that the dilemma of modern humanity is that it's pointless. The existential philosopher, Albert Camus, and other philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre used the term "Theatre of the Absurd" to express their inability to find any rational explanation for human life. I think the title of the play is symbolic, meaning that life is a stage, and we are the absurd actors.
From the play so far, and what I've read online, I've gathered that an existentialist thinks:
1. Life has no meaning.
2. Life brings unhappiness.
3. Rules are not meant to be broken, because there are no rules.
4. No matter what, choices will always lead to a strong kick in the backside. Nothing positive will come out of them, ever.
5. A person who is all talk, no action will never make any value out of his/her life.
As I said before, I do not agree with the existentialist point of view.
Point 1: In my mind, it's obvious that life has meaning. Every moment is precious, and should not be taken for granted. Just by spending time with family, laughing with friends, playing with the family pet, or looking at the world, you can see that it means something. Even looking back at memories shows that it was worth something.
Point 2: I read a quote somewhere that without the bad times, you won't appreciate the good ones. Life does bring unhappiness sometimes, but it makes us stronger people learning how to deal with it, or fix the problem, and move on.
Point 3: Without rules, the world would be even more messed up than it already is, regarding crime, etc. End of story.
Point 4: Bad choices do lead to negative consequences, but a person needs to consider what the best choice for them, and the people they love may be before they decide. There are good decisions, and they will lead to positive outcomes.
Point 5: This point is the only one I somewhat agree with. I think every person's life has meaning, but they can make it more meaningfull if they take action. For instance, a person who devotes themselves to becoming a doctor, nurse, or medical researcher is dedicating their life to helping others, and this makes their life more meaningful. This point can also obviously be directly related to the play. It's nonsensical dialogue and meaningless action, including a generous amount of cliches, puns, and repetition can be seen while the two main characters are waiting to meet up with Godot. They take no action to make any decisions about what they are going to do. They just stand there for a massive amount of time until they have a conversation with what seems like a crazed slave owner. None of it makes sense, and what they were doing had no meaning whatsoever. They just talked about what they wanted to do, but never actually followed through.
So, existentalism isn't my cup of tea, but I'm enjoying reading the play :)
From the play so far, and what I've read online, I've gathered that an existentialist thinks:
1. Life has no meaning.
2. Life brings unhappiness.
3. Rules are not meant to be broken, because there are no rules.
4. No matter what, choices will always lead to a strong kick in the backside. Nothing positive will come out of them, ever.
5. A person who is all talk, no action will never make any value out of his/her life.
As I said before, I do not agree with the existentialist point of view.
Point 1: In my mind, it's obvious that life has meaning. Every moment is precious, and should not be taken for granted. Just by spending time with family, laughing with friends, playing with the family pet, or looking at the world, you can see that it means something. Even looking back at memories shows that it was worth something.
Point 2: I read a quote somewhere that without the bad times, you won't appreciate the good ones. Life does bring unhappiness sometimes, but it makes us stronger people learning how to deal with it, or fix the problem, and move on.
Point 3: Without rules, the world would be even more messed up than it already is, regarding crime, etc. End of story.
Point 4: Bad choices do lead to negative consequences, but a person needs to consider what the best choice for them, and the people they love may be before they decide. There are good decisions, and they will lead to positive outcomes.
Point 5: This point is the only one I somewhat agree with. I think every person's life has meaning, but they can make it more meaningfull if they take action. For instance, a person who devotes themselves to becoming a doctor, nurse, or medical researcher is dedicating their life to helping others, and this makes their life more meaningful. This point can also obviously be directly related to the play. It's nonsensical dialogue and meaningless action, including a generous amount of cliches, puns, and repetition can be seen while the two main characters are waiting to meet up with Godot. They take no action to make any decisions about what they are going to do. They just stand there for a massive amount of time until they have a conversation with what seems like a crazed slave owner. None of it makes sense, and what they were doing had no meaning whatsoever. They just talked about what they wanted to do, but never actually followed through.
So, existentalism isn't my cup of tea, but I'm enjoying reading the play :)
Monday, October 31, 2011
October: Is Jocasta to Blame?
This month our class read the play Oedipus. In the play, the main character is deemed a prophecy from birth. He is doomed to kill his father and marry his mother. In efforts to avoid this, his mother and father, the king and queen, sent him off to be "bolted" to the side of a mountain, and left to die. Another man finds him, and saves him. When he gets older, he learns of the prophecy and, ignorant, tries to escape from his adopted parents. He ends up where he was born. Just like the prophecy says, he kills his father and marries his mother. He has two daughters with his mother. When he finds out the shame he brought to himself and his family, he struck his eyes, and his mother, Jocasta, killed herself.
I would like to talk more about whose fault the blame should lie in. In my opinion, it is mainly Jocasta's fault. Not only did she not follow through with the "termination" of her baby boy, but when her husband was killed she married his killer. Did she REALLY believe this was a coincidence? I mean, the guy was the same age her son would be. There had to be some resemblance. I don't know, but if I was her I would've been more skeptical. If there is a prophecy declared with terms as serious as those, don't you think she would be smart enough not to marry again?
In terms of connecting it to modern society, I don't know where this could fit. You don't really hear about prophecies like this. The only "prophecy" I can think of is when random guys come out of the woodwork every two weeks declaring that the world is going to end. They are inevitably wrong because as people, we will never know when it is coming. I guess this could be a reason to defend Jocasta: She put it out of her mind, and didn't see it coming.
I would like to talk more about whose fault the blame should lie in. In my opinion, it is mainly Jocasta's fault. Not only did she not follow through with the "termination" of her baby boy, but when her husband was killed she married his killer. Did she REALLY believe this was a coincidence? I mean, the guy was the same age her son would be. There had to be some resemblance. I don't know, but if I was her I would've been more skeptical. If there is a prophecy declared with terms as serious as those, don't you think she would be smart enough not to marry again?
In terms of connecting it to modern society, I don't know where this could fit. You don't really hear about prophecies like this. The only "prophecy" I can think of is when random guys come out of the woodwork every two weeks declaring that the world is going to end. They are inevitably wrong because as people, we will never know when it is coming. I guess this could be a reason to defend Jocasta: She put it out of her mind, and didn't see it coming.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Hypocrite? Or Merely Helping Oneself?
After reading the article, "The Hypocrisy of Ayn Rand" by Mario Piperni, I knew this was the topic I wanted to discuss. Starting out with a quote by Rand herself:
"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."
Her ideas are seen in The Fountainhead, like a punch in the face, through the protagonist, Howard Roark. He is a young, independent-minded architect who utterly refuses to compromise in his work. He designs his buildings in the unique style of modern architecture while others around him are glued to older styles. Roark even blows up one of his own buildings because he would rather see it demolished than altered in any way by someone else. Although I agree with some of his principles of individualism, hasn't he ever heard of teamwork? I guess not...
Rand makes it clear in the thoughts, words, and actions of Roark that she believes a person needs to take what they believe, and stick to it, no matter what they need to do to keep it that way. Apparently, being an arsonist, and destroying public property is a-okay in Rand's book, no pun intended.
In his article, Piperni bluntly calls Rand a hypocrite. His reasoning for this is that after Rand developed lung cancer, she took her husband, Frank O'Connor's last name so she could receive governmental help for treatment. This totally goes against one of her statements in which she says that she "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently..." She didn't feel that an individual should take help. Shouldn't Rand have figured out a way to financially get treatment herself then, though "doctors cost a lot more money than books earn..."? (Evva Pryror, social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick). Mario Piperni later states that "In the end, the queen of individual rights and limited government and staunch opponent of the welfare state, turned out to be nothing more than your common, everyday hypocrite."
Honestly, I think Mario is being way too harsh. If you were in her shoes, what would you do? Would you sit around as the lung cancer spreads? Would you reject the money that you didn't have to care for yourself when you were dying? (Excuse my lack of euphemism.) Of course not! You have a spouse, kids, dog, job, or whatever! You're not going to sit around at home and do nothing, despite what you might have said before. In the end, who really cares what the public thinks of you? It's what you think of yourself that matters. If the press, or anyone, wants to criticize you for comments you made previously, let them. You need to do all you can to help yourself in that kind of situation. Stubborness is no reason to let yourself go when something could help you. Besides, no one ever said Rand gave in easily. Just the fact that she did it secretly means that she knew she was going against her principles, and was not proud of it. I know I don't blame her. I would have done the same thing in her situation. I virtually applaud Rand for being strong enough to go against the morals she lived and preached by everyday, even though I know through the intensity of her opinions in The Fountainhead, that it was not an easy task for her.
On a national note, there are millions of people suffering from all types of cancer. They all have to accept some type of help because no one can totally afford those doctor bills. What makes Rand any different?
In closing, every person says a hypocritical thing at least one in their life. If Rand stayed true to her statements her entire life until the point where she had medical issues, and didn't have a choice, can't we give her a break?
Honestly, I think Mario is being way too harsh. If you were in her shoes, what would you do? Would you sit around as the lung cancer spreads? Would you reject the money that you didn't have to care for yourself when you were dying? (Excuse my lack of euphemism.) Of course not! You have a spouse, kids, dog, job, or whatever! You're not going to sit around at home and do nothing, despite what you might have said before. In the end, who really cares what the public thinks of you? It's what you think of yourself that matters. If the press, or anyone, wants to criticize you for comments you made previously, let them. You need to do all you can to help yourself in that kind of situation. Stubborness is no reason to let yourself go when something could help you. Besides, no one ever said Rand gave in easily. Just the fact that she did it secretly means that she knew she was going against her principles, and was not proud of it. I know I don't blame her. I would have done the same thing in her situation. I virtually applaud Rand for being strong enough to go against the morals she lived and preached by everyday, even though I know through the intensity of her opinions in The Fountainhead, that it was not an easy task for her.
On a national note, there are millions of people suffering from all types of cancer. They all have to accept some type of help because no one can totally afford those doctor bills. What makes Rand any different?
In closing, every person says a hypocritical thing at least one in their life. If Rand stayed true to her statements her entire life until the point where she had medical issues, and didn't have a choice, can't we give her a break?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)