March Monthly Blog

My home computer = Nicer font. Good to know. Anyway, for this monthly blog, I wanted to expand upon the idea of the Faustian Bargain, made famous by Christopher Marlow and Johann Faustus. I think that the Faustian Bargain need not necessarily be with a great evil, in fact it could be defined as simply selling one's soul or ideals in the ultimate short term gain, long term loss scenario. Dorian Gray was an example of such a bargain, and it ultimately drove him to commit suicide. Dorian made no pact with the devil, never signed his name in a contract written in his own blood, and yet he was destroyed just as certainly (but perhaps not as infinitely) as Herr Doctor Faustus was. Dorian Gray made the choice of a short term gain of 20-ish years of hedonism in exchange for committing suicide at the end, basically. In Christian religions, those who commit suicide do not go to heaven, so in a sense the Faustian Bargain is exactly what Dorian Gray made, only a more subtle, fine-print-y sort of bargain. The issue I have with this in my modern life is with college loans. I hate the idea of being in debt to somebody, especially in debt for enough money to buy me a very nice car, but it looks like theres nothing I can do about that, and I just have to hope my girlfriend understands we can't have nice things for awhile. Mine is sort of a reverse Faustian Bargain. I am selling myself now to try and obtain a future, instead of selling my soul later to enjoy the now. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. In my opinion, Faustian Bargains are a good way to ask for trouble, whether you want it or not. Unfortunately, our society enjoys making such bargains as necessary as possible, such as with Obamacare (Affordable Care Act to be precise, but both sides of the aisle are quoted as calling it Obamacare, and frankly it's catchier than ACA) and other political movements. We don't get to decide a middle ground anymore in our country, that time is passed. Now it seems like there is no gray area, it's all black and white. I keep coming back in my mind to the story of the young woman in Texas who was denied admission to a college because she was white, and the college had a racial quota to fill for black and/or latino students imposed on them by the government. I have no problem with educating youth, but by picking which youth to educate, we are making a Faustian Bargain as a country. We are selling our citizens of today to try and improve the hopeful citizens of tomorrow, without the say of either party being involved. What happened in Texas is wrong, discrimination is no answer for discrimination, but it seems Faust is at work once again, this time in America rather than an unnamed state in Germany.

February Monthly Blog

Okay it looks like this can only be written in HTML for some reason on school computers, so hope this works. Anyway, this monthly blog's main focus is going to be the changing culture in the middle east, including Afghanistan and Iran. The point I would like to prove is that times have changed in many ways since this book was written even, never mind the differences between now and the Cold War era. This connects to the A Thousand Splendid Suns book which we read in that times have changed. Ever since the events of Arab Spring in Egypt and elsewhere, the culture of the Middle East has changed drastically in the western end of the region. Many of the old fundamentalist laws and ways are starting to disappear. Many countries such as Egypt, Iraq, and others are embracing the changes of these laws in favor of a more liberal (although highly conservative by our standards) approach. More liberal, westernized countries such as Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Kuwait have already embraced such changes over the past few decades and continue to do so today. Afghanistan is finding itself more and more liberated from Taliban rule (although with the withdrawal of U.S. forces, this freedom is not likely to last), and with their newfound freedom are starting to embrace changes, particularly in gender differences regarding the proper actions of women in the country. I think that it is good that these countries are embracing a slightly more liberal mindset, but I do not think that they should ever consider a completely American system of rules and laws. Right now it isnt even doing us any favors, and we're the ones who invented it. The Middle East is a naturally tense region with many ethnicities and nations conflicting on a day-to-day basis, including the ever-present threat of nuclear war from Iran. These countries need a firm, but gentle hand to lead them into the 21st century. Some changes in laws are good, but to go too far would cause even more chaos than exists now, and this would likely lead to multiple wars in the region.

January Blog Post

Okay, let's try it this way. For some reason my computer doesn't want to type it in "Compose" mode this time. The issue I would like to present with my monthly blog this time is the issue of society versus self. I think that there is a common misconception in modern society. The misconception is that a person must choose between society and self in terms of family and work or wants and needs. For example, look at Kristine (or however that's spelled) in A Doll's House. She says that because she had to work, she decided she didn't have time for a family. That and her husband died. She decided that if she couldn't be a wife, she had to work. But she says that she wanted to be a part of society in a way at the same time. In this case, Kristine chooses to be both herself and a part of society, because their interests coincide. There seems to be a modern dilemma in this, that one cannot be part of society and an individual person. One must pick one or the other to be in life and live by that decision. In my case, I don't have much in the way of a life outside of school, but part of that is by choice and part by necessity. I don't work, so I don't have as much money, but I've never had to work because I don't have as many things to spend that money on. I have pretty much everything I need. So I can choose to be myself if I want, but at the same time I realize there will come a day when I do have to work and provide for myself, and I prepare for that by conforming to society's demands that I go through the pure waste of time (in my mind) that is applying for scholarships to go to college. If education is so important at a college level, why do we limit ourself in terms of what it takes and how much it costs to get in? I personally believe that there should be no forced choice between society and self. People can be as much or as little a part of both worlds as they choose. Looking at Edna's decision in The Awakening to ignore her children for fear of giving up her identity, quite frankly I think she's missing the point. Why should she have to give up her identity? Her identity is part of what allows her to give up everything including her life. She is her own person by making such moral choices as that, granted that she is only her own person when she herself makes that choice. Besides, she has a clear obligation as a human being to go to the aid of another if it is within her power. I think that Edna decided that she could only be one of two things: herself or what society wanted for her. I think that the fact that she never realized she could possibly combine the two under the right conditions (in Alaska for example) that ultimately drove her to commit suicide. Society and self are two halves (or whatever proportion it may be) of a whole, of a person, and I think we as a society are starting to forget that. Similar to politics, we decide that it can only be one way or the other. We convince ourselves that there can be no middle ground in this regard, and I think we as a society are poorer for it.

December Monthly Blog

This month our issue was guided: the ideas and core values evidenced by the theory of cultural relativism. In short, cultural relativism states that every society is unique, and that nobody has the right to criticize the society or the beliefs of another person as being objectively correct or incorrect, only that they should be judged as different. The clear connection here is between our society, and that of Okonkwo in Things Fall Apart.

It is for that reason that I am going to throw that example out the window. It's TOO obvious a connection, and a boring one to have to spell out for people who already know its logical conclusions. I'd like to take this instead idea to task in Oedipus. I think that this idea strikes closer to home in that way. Our modern American society is derived (in part) from the beliefs and systems of our Roman ancestors (not to disregard the Germans or Saxons, but let's focus on the Romans for now). The Romans considered the Greeks to be highly advanced. They respected the achievements and culture of the Greeks, incorporating many Greek achievements and beliefs into the Roman society. War machines is an obvious example, but not the only one. Food, music, architecture, all were either direct copies of Greek achievements, or were influenced by them. Consider architecture; what is the difference between a Greek column and a Roman column? A student of architecture would find such ignorance insulting in the extreme, and could hold an hour-long debate on the merits of each. Consider, however, an analogy; if I were to take a Hershey bar and put it in a Snickers wrapper, would it stop being a Hershey bar? The same holds true for the architecture of the Romans. A column by any other name is still a column, and in many cases the column was the biggest difference between two such buildings.

Now let's take a look at Oedipus. We, in our modern society, are appalled at the fact that Oedipus killed his father. And yet, Greek society would have permitted it. The Greeks were an honor-based society, and valued their pride and achievements above all else. Therefore, the greatest insult to a Greek would have been one directed at his honor, rather than a perceived lack of ability at writing literature or for having a crooked nose. Arguments over family honor often turned into blood feuds which would span decades, and result in massive bloodshed. Moreover, we as Americans aren't free from the stigma of killing our fathers or brothers either. The American Civil War is rife with stories of friend killing friend, brother killing brother, and fathers killing sons over their beliefs. The Revolutionary War went even further, having fathers label their sons traitors and their sons labeling fathers as cowards, all while STILL killing each other.

Thus, who are we to criticize Oedipus for killing his father, for reasons the Greeks themselves would have found acceptable. Granted the provocation might have been relatively minor considering it was a father and his son, but neither party was aware of the fact, and so for both of them the duel was perfectly acceptable in their eyes, and in fact necessary for both parties to live or die with their honor intact.

Fast-forward to modern day, let's take a look at the new crusade; the war on terror in Afghanistan. We, as America, are still in Afghanistan to hunt down and fight terrorists wherever we can find them. Well and good, personally I believe that the war must continue or our own children will fight it again in 20 years. Chechnya is a good case-in-point. However, the war on terror has led to vast misconceptions regarding Islamic culture and beliefs. The modern media would have us believe that muslims are all wearing semtex vests under their white turbans and overly long beards. That's not true at all, but we as Americans see it that way because all of those who have wronged us in Afghanistan and in 9/11 used the Islamic religion as justification for their actions. The same stereotyping would occur if the terrorists had declared war on hamburgers or apple pie. We as Americans find ourselves in a unique position; that of the world's only remaining superpower (at least for now). China is rising, and Russia was once as great as ourselves (and some would argue that Russia is making a comeback under Putin's almost-dictatorship, me among them). It is our responsibility as the world's superpower to ensure that we do not fall into stereotypical responses to different cultures. Rather we must set the example for other nations to follow.

I disagree with Cultural Relativism because of the premise that there is no right or wrong between various cultures. Well by that logic, there is no right and wrong at all, and morals are just a myth or a bedtime story for little children. Morals and beliefs change, but there are still universal constants. The Ten Commandments are possibly the best place to start when it comes to understanding western cultures and their ideals. All ten commandments were a part of western society at one point or another, and many still are today. Muslims do not hold the same ideals, and yet they abhor murder for example. Thieves in Islamic countries face dangerous lives too. In Islamic cultures, it is customary to punish a thief by cutting off his or her hand. We as Christians would find that barbaric, but Muslims might find our practice of locking such people in a metal box for twenty years to be barbaric as well. There are universal morals however in that stealing is wrong and must be punished. The "how" of that punishment IS open to cultural debate, and if such a debate were to rage for millennia there would be no clear answer. What is important is that all cultures hold certain truths to be self-evident, and thus I disagree with Cultural Relativism because the core beliefs upon which it is founded have been proven false. A solidly built house on a sand foundation will still collapse, often under its own weight, and theories such as this are no different. The foundation of Cultural Relativism is flawed and thus collapses under its own weight.

One of the things that really struck me in our lessons during November was how we all praise tragedies and their writers to the heavens, and yet nobody seems to have a firm grasp of what tragedy really is. Everyone has a personal, subjective opinion about what makes a tragedy so great, and yet nobody seems to have a clearly defined idea of what tragedy is. Even the various dictionaries have different definitions of what a tragedy is, and each definition is so open-ended that it leaves the true definition open to debate.

Take Oedipus for example. What was his tragic flaw? Seeking the truth, trying to define his own path in life, helping others? In what modern context are those considered "flaws"? Quite the contrary, the very things cited as being Oedipus' flaws are qualities which our modern society sees fit to praise and encourage. Would aiding Haiti, for example, be considered a "tragic flaw"? Not in our modern times. Nowadays it might be considered misguided or low in our list of priorities, but nobody would consider it a flaw to want to help people.

I think that the point that everyone is missing is that there is no such thing as a true "tragedy" in a literary context. People come to bad ends in various books and plays, and obviously there are tragic events in the connotation of the word. However, I don't think anyone has a firm enough idea of what exactly a tragedy should be to say with certainty what is and what isn't a tragic novel or play. The idea of tragedy itself is so nebulous and vague that we use it to apply to many ideas in our modern society. Our society, and modern English as a language, depends far more on connotations than denotations in this time period. What is SAID and what is MEANT are rarely the same thing anymore. I think that because of that, tragedies have lost their appeal to modern audiences, as has analyzing literature in general. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. We spend so much time analyzing in society, looking for hidden meanings. Why? What is the point? Can we not just read a story for the sake of enjoying the story? People who say that are looked down upon by the "educated" among us, the "exceptional students". And yet, how is it that those people are happier in the long run than the educated ones? It's not that ignorance is involved, these people know that the literary elements and characters are included, but they elect to take the work and enjoy it for what it is. In my opinion, that's probably the better way to do it. This includes tragedies. People don't like looking for hidden meanings anymore, and a tragedy is basically a collection of hidden meanings and morals. I think that at the very least if we are going to place such an emphasis on tragedy, we should define clearly what a tragedy is, and then decide if it is a really important contribution to literature in modern times.

October Monthly Blog

I think that everyone in the class would agree that one of the biggest issues presented in this month's reading is the concept of fate, and how much of fate is truly in our control. Sure we have various names for it, such as luck, skill (in some cases), chance, or destiny. In the end though, they are all relatively the same concept presented in different ways for different situations.The issue came up repeatedly in Oedipus, in fact answering the question of whether or not we control our fate was pretty much the whole point of the play. Socrates' message appears to be that we do not in fact control our fate. However, I think Socrates skipped a step in his play. What exactly is "fate"? What is reality? And whose fate are we supposed to be in control of? As a connection example, think of a college application. My college "fate" or future is in the hands of the admissions departments of the colleges I have applied to. So I have no control over my own fate in this case. However, the college official has the power to change my fate and destiny based on how he feels about my application. But I don't believe that that is a true definition of fate. Fate is nothing more than serendipitous reality, or unfortunate reality in some cases. Reality, in my opinion, is what the person defining reality makes of it. Reality is a collection of influences and inputs from our senses and past experiences. Therefore, I believe that you can control fate and reality because reality is what you make of it. People with mental disorders, for example, who we would call "crazy", usually believe strongly in their own brand of "reality". That doesn't mean they are correct, but in their own minds they are correct because their reality is the culmination of their sensory inputs (or what's left of them). Similarly, one can control "fate", both for themselves and for others, by choosing what influences and senses to listen to and act upon. You don't normally act upon your sense of touch when running from a fire, for example. Therefore you DO have that input, but you influence your "fate" by not relying solely on that input. Again, just to summarize, I disagree with Socrates. Fate is reality, and reality is literally what you decide it is. Others might not agree with you, but your own sense of reality cannot be changed unless you choose to believe in the influences they are having on you.

So this is my AP 12 English Blog, hope everything is up to speed.

September:

One of the things that I wanted to expand on that I didn't feel was connected very well in our Socratic seminars was how Howard Roark encouraged other young artists. Howard Roark survived the gauntlet of becoming recognized as a great architect, but he knew that not everyone would have the same success as he did, so he tried to help others along. Part of this was in the way he treated his employees, allowing them to work in an environment that encouraged creativity. I just think that this is a very interesting move on his part, to want to encourage others to be successful. Howard doesn't seem to care normally what everyone else thinks about his work, and yet he goes out of his way to promote the work of his employees. I think that we don't do enough of that in society today, personally. In my experience, school and work are very non-creative environments. We turn out cookie-cutter work in response to cookie-cutter prompts and expect cookie-cutter grades. The originality and variety that built this country are being lost. Instead, we replace these foundations with standards and achievements. If we are to create achievements, let them be true ACHIEVEMENTS. Let them be goals that challenge us to think creatively, that we must exercise all of our creative and intellectual gifts to attain. Let's not set the bar at the level of the lowest student, let's set many bars for our many unique students and see what we can truly become. I am in support of what Howard Roark did. He offered advice and criticism as requested, but for the most part he allowed his architects fairly free reign over their designs. However, these standardized architects couldn't seem to handle their newfound freedom to express themselves. They either quit, or doomed themselves to mediocrity. As abrasive a character as Roark was, he was clearly a supporter of creativity and originality, and I think there is something to be said for that.