|
|
|
|
For our various classroom musings!
|
| | 3 | 2/7/2012 5:47 PM | The Superbowl Over the past few years, I've noticed that the Superbowl has gotten much more inappropriate, but also more funny. Maube that's just because I'm growing up and my sense of humor is changing. But after last night, I extremely shocked at some of the commercials and the halftime show. Almost every commercial on last night had a sexual reference or innuendo, everything from cars, insurance companies, and even M&M's were implying or showing things I thought were too raunchy for younger viewers. While I found many of them humorous and entertaining, if it were my place as a parent I would not want my elementary school aged child seeing things like that. Even the halftime show had 50+ year old Madonna becoming the epitome of "milf" as she pranced around stage in a skirt and heels. Almost all of the dance moves were sexual too, which I'm sure offended many viewers. To top it all off, what I thought was a camera glitch when the screen went black during the halftime show was actually an attempt to sensor Madonna's costar M.I.A. giving the middle finger to the camera. Is the Superbowl itself trying to shy away from the (mostly) family friendly TV special it used to be? Or are people these days just too prude and need to be more open and blunt about sexual connotations and implications? If things keep escalating like this, who knows what we will be watching for a halftime show in the next 5 years... | |
| | 0 | 2/7/2012 4:45 PM | Why must all the school spirit be gone? Just a little rant BUT... Where is our school spirit?? I noticed last week at the pep rally that a lot of the people in our grade had an attitude with our school. I mean, I don't blame them, but they were constantly bashing our school and they weren't having fun. I kind of felt like I was the only one who was at least trying to have some fun, and barley anybody participates in spirit week! I love spirit week, it's the one day of the week where you can dress up all crazy and go all out and not get judged. And before anyone goes off on me saying I didn't dress up today, I literally had nothing to wear. Anywho, it seems like everybody just has an attitude with showing school spirit. I used to be that way but I realized that when I actually participated in school activities, I had more fun! Can't people at least try and show some school spirit?!?! | |
| | 1 | 2/7/2012 4:39 PM | Who's better? I guess this kinda ties in with anti-bullying week. So, all the time we see or hear people say horrible things, usually, but not limited to, those who are considered of "less worth" than them. These can include people with disabilities, people who are considered "weird," people who are different, jerks, whoever. Sometimes when people say these things, others who overhear decide to fight back, but they say similar things. Take YouTube comments. If you ever go through them, you'll find a good plenty of people on videos telling whoever it is to "go die" "you're worthless," etc. Then, people who disagree, retaliate and go and tell them the same kinds of things. What makes what they say any better?! Why is it these people feel it's okay to say such horrible things, even if it is to someone who is being awful? I saw a video of a little girl who suffers from progeria, "a disease that swiftly speeds along the aging process and causes the very young to literally die of old age." and she loves Selena Gomez, who came and visited her and was really sweet, but there are people, maybe just trolls, or maybe actually really shallow people, and I guess have the right to their own opinion even though we may not generally agree with it as a society, who were saying they think she deserved to die and she makes them sick. People are going on this person's page and telling him/her that they deserve to die for saying such awful things about this little girl, but isn't it kind of the same? Like "doing onto others as they do to you," but with hate? Sure, the first person is in the wrong, but does that make the people who respond any more right as they wish harm upon a person as well? It just confuses me how one can think what they're doing is alright when they're practically doing the same thing. And this is a long rant, but I'm just wondering what you're thoughts on this are, do you think one is more justified than the other? | |
| | 9 | 2/6/2012 7:14 PM | Anti-Bullying Week I don't like this anti-bullying week.
I was bullied pretty badly in middle school. I call 6th and 7th grade the "dark years." I was fat and didn't have many friends. People let me know I was fat, and not so politely. In seventh grade, I bought a bunch of aeropostale clothes, wore them to school, and left early, crying, because a bunch of kids called me gay. I didn't have a support group of friends, so I had to console myself.
I didn't enjoy these moments by any stretch of the imagination. I would never want to go through them again. But I would never go back and change it. Bullying taught me something I couldn't learn from a class room. I learned to be independent, to not put trust in people that don't deserve it, to suck it up and keep pushing when times get hard, among other things. I lost the weight and no longer talked to the kids that had bullied me in the first place.
I am in no way advocating going out and calling a gay kid "faggot" or a fat kid "fat ass." I can't stand the assholes that do that stuff as much as anybody. But I am saying that bullying has a place in our society. It builds character. It's not fair, but the real world isn't fair either.
The bullying week is something that will make the administrators feel good. They can turn and say, "we did something about bullying," when in all reality these videos won't accomplish a damn thing. No one will change because of five 20 minute videos.
This post is depressing, but it shouldn't be. It's just reality. | |
| | 13 | 2/6/2012 5:14 PM | Selfless Acts Recently in third hour, we were discussing selfless acts and random acts of kindness. Most of the class felt that most acts of kindness are not in kindness at all, but are actually just ways to benefit one's self. I disagree with this. There is such thing as being a good person with no benefit going towards yourself! I can't believe that no one in the class felt this way. What do the rest of you think? | |
| | 7 | 2/6/2012 5:04 PM | OKAY I'M SORRY BUT I HATE that public school flippin rates our Citizenship. And I hate that I actually care about it! I don't like that when I see a number one there I give myself a little pat on the back. Good job! You didn't talk too much in that class! Way to be submissive! I don't know. I just think it's dumb that even my behavior can have a grade slapped on it.
Rant over. | |
| | 17 | 2/5/2012 9:51 PM | Sensory Deprivation Tank
First of all, to those not in sixth hour: This is a legitimate thing! You go in, the tank's filled with a little less than a foot of saline solution, ya got earplugs and it's completely dark. In other words, your senses are off. Mr.Chisnell and his friends apparently built one of these in high school and forced one guy in it for four days, so that's, you know, scary! :) But anyway, it sounds super sweet. People say the mind does crazy awesome things when you deprive your senses, so anybody want to do this with me? I mean, we wouldn't go in the tank together; that'd be kind of weird. But does this sound awesome to anyone else? There's a place (Great Lakes Flotation) just outside of Flint about an hour away. Look it up! The first time you go it's $25.
ORRRR.... We could do a class project where we built a sensory deprivation tank in the courtyard at ROHS. And we could charge people to use it. Make an AP Lit profit and then use that money to help the people that don't have maps. Just kidding.... use the money to buy an actual sensory deprivation tank. Because you can actually buy these things too! Look it up! | |
| | 8 | 2/5/2012 5:57 PM | Lying We discussed lying this week in class when talking about Heart of Darkness. We were arguing whether lying was biological or something that society tells us to do. Why do we lie? The class seemed to think that lying is wired in our brains, but that society puts another element on top of it. But Mr. Chisnell seemed to keep challenging the supporting evidence we had. WE discussed how if we were hunters in the wild back in caveman times, we would have to hide from our prey because in a face to face battle, we are inferior. WE then discussed how chamelions change colors to trick or "lie" about what they really are. Thoughts? | |
| | 11 | 2/5/2012 3:44 PM | At an early age, we are taught that generalizations=understanding, but generalization could perhaps be the biggest form of misunderstanding. | |
| | 15 | 2/5/2012 2:03 PM | Ignorance Is Bliss...or is it? I know we talked about this like a week ago, but it is still bothering me. I am an obsessive smart phone user. I must spend at least 20% of my day looking at my phone screen, which is pathetic. Ever since Mr. Chisnell told us about the clay from the Congo that is in all cell phones... I look at my phone and frown. It's an awful thing to think about, how our ignorant phone usage is causing possible physical harm to people who harvest the radioactive clay. It makes me think of all the other things we take advantage of everyday. But it's not just clay and cell phones, we are ignorant to so many other things. For example, bacon. Pigs are cute animals, and I would most definitely be a vegetarian if I had the strength to give up meat, but I am ignorant to the slaughtering of pigs because bacon is pure bliss. I feel so bad for using my phone, but now it's a habit. How do we even fix this problem of ignorance? | |
| | 1 | 2/5/2012 1:11 PM | Einstein on the Beach soooooooo....... yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. anyone care to explain? | |
| | 5 | 2/5/2012 12:06 PM | Anxiety Is Reading When Chisnell initially presented this idea to my class I was skeptical. Reading for AP Lit is anxiety, but reading for pleasure isn't. As he explained further though, I began to recognize what he was saying better. If a book or writing doesn't get you thinking, then the whole point of it is lost. The Invisible Man made us all think deeper about details and the purpose it had to the story. In Heart of Darkness we are forced to slow down and set time aside just to get through three pages. The anxiety is attributed to our own thoughts about a certain book or writing of ours. It's our own ideas working to form new ones. Does this make sense? I don't know if my interpretation of this is right or complete, but what do others think? Do you agree that anxiety is reading? | |
| | 12 | 2/5/2012 9:51 AM | Altruism? For some time, I believed that we did not live in an altruistic world, that everything a human did was inherently selfish. Even when performing an act of kindness, a person is doing it to make themselves feel better or secure friendship, right? However, lately I have thought heavily about when I perform acts of kindness, and have realized that I truly do them to make someone else happy, not myself. I think that whether or not a person believes in altruism is based on their level of self-esteem. Low-self esteem people will be more cynical and believe all actions have a hidden motive. High-self esteem people, however, have enough faith in themselves and the rest of society to believe that at a certain level random acts of kindness do occur. | |
| | 12 | 2/5/2012 9:43 AM | psychologically inevitable The dominance of one person over another is psychologically inevitable, and no matter in the future or the past, will happen. It doesn't have to be something large like a dicataor, but something as simple as the president of a club creates rules that opress the rest of the people in the club. | |
| | 6 | 2/5/2012 9:42 AM | Objectivity This post is a sort of a springboard from my last which dealt with the signifiers that clog our perception of reality. My question is this: is there such a thing as true objectivity? We scrutinize and observe with all the scientific separateness we can muster, but in the end will our world of signifiers get in the way? | |
| | 4 | 2/5/2012 9:01 AM | Reality So, we talked about the concept of actual reality in first hour...tuesday? As we determined in later discussions, a general reality does not exist. In our culture of signifiers (DeSassure's literary theory) we attach personal meanings which skew our perception. For instance, an Englishman looking at the enslavement/ivory hunting in the Kongo would see plentiful examples of the benevolence and commercial savvy of his countrymen to civilize those savages so. Obviously, as objective viewers, we see the flaws in that train of thought.
The idea that I want to present is this: is the ability to see the faults in others, and inability to recognize our own a curse or a gift? | |
| | 7 | 2/5/2012 8:45 AM | Defending a crime In 6th hour, the class was talking about the issues involving the lawyer defending the person who committed the crime. The class talked about how a lawyer could even do that, how it is morally wrong. But in the lawyer's defense, how do we know that the person even committed the crime or not. That is the whole reason why the case in in court in the first place. The lawyer could honestly believe that the person was innocent and would try to defend this person until the end. Even if the person actually was guilty, the lawyer cannot be down talked for defending a criminal because he is just doing his job and he really may have thought the defendant was innocent. Also, even if the person was judged guilty, that does not necessarily mean that the person is guilty, there are few cases where they got the wrong guy, or where the defendant was not given a fair trial and was wrongly convicted. | |
| | 5 | 2/4/2012 1:35 PM | Exhaustion Yielding Serenity: A Thoughtful Anecdote After a grueling two hour practice, followed by a 5 mile run on a treadmill with layers of sweatshirts and pants on, I found myself quite worn down (a typical night for a seasoned wrestler). I climbed the stairs leading from my basement to the door and walked outside, hoping that the winter night air would relieve me from my borderline heatstroke and cool my aching muscles. I lied down on my porch, utterly exhausted, yet satisfied from my work. I strange sensation came upon me as I stared up to the night sky. The neighborhood that surrounded me seemed quite calm. It was not an eerie feeling, nor was it necessarily blissful. I felt as if I was seeing the world around me in a whole new setting. It was I was surrounded by everything yet nothing at the same time. The still air felt like a thin wrapping around my numb body, the streetlights strange flares of light from a distant galaxy. Even the dirt on my fingertips had a new meaning. I felt no longer just dirt, but a strange group of fine grains whose purpose and identity I had never noticed before.
This might seem like a stupid, pointless, rambling story to many of you, but hear me out. I believe that this could serve as an example of a relationship we have seen in many of our novels. When the body begins to exhaust itself, and the mind becomes disoriented, new thoughts arise. Consider Invisible Man while in the hospital after the explosion or Kurtz on his deathbed. It as if something has been unlocked, perhaps a layer of the subconscious, pouring out new, strange, curious, and sometimes shrewd thoughts. | |
| | 18 | 2/3/2012 4:02 PM | Random Opinions This is not not at all supposed to be morbid or sad or anything, but a long time ago I was asked a very interesting question that I feel like involved a lot of inner reflection. And who doesn't like a bit of inner reflection how and then? So, here's my random question. If you were on the edge of a cliff, and you were going to jump off, would you choose to do so face down or face up? Face down means you are looking down as you're falling, you can see the ground, and the moment you hit. You are in as much control of the situation as you can be, and you will know when it happens, and know when to expect it. However, if you look up, you leave it unknown. You choose to not know the exact moment and leave it a mystery until it hits. All the while, instead you are looking up into the sky, looking at something beautiful within all of this, but yet disregarding/not recognizing what's on beneath you. I know this is a really weird question and isn't all that intellectual, but I find it fascinating to think through both options. So, if you were to jump, would you go face down, or face up? | |
| | 9 | 2/2/2012 12:10 AM | Charities toward country's 3rd hour discussed charities on Friday. We discussed donating to other countries and some people said that we should be helping our country before we help others, when the tsunami had just hit japan. At first I thought it was ridiculous that someone would say that, especially with something so destructive, why wouldn't we help. But the more i thought about other scenarios with different countries i almost had this unintentional attitude towards it. Thinking to myself why would i go to Africa when i can go on a mission trip somewhere in the US and better my own country. I felt this way because when i was thinking of donating to other country's i felt guilty, because i know my own country needs it too. But its like i couldn't help feeling that way. I feel like we have been trained to put our country first, thats why we have those people that that say "why help other countrys when we have our own to help" | |
| | 17 | 1/25/2012 1:55 PM | SOPA Alright, someone's gotta post about this! I don't know if this belongs more on Facebook for people to talk about, but I'm interested in what the AP Lit students think.
Background...a bill is going around congress that will ultimately shutdown unauthorized sites (Facebook, youtube, wikipedia..)
Today was the day to protest and not use the internet. I went on wikipedia today by chance and this is what I got!
"Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia."
That was the moment that I realized that not just some Facebook users are concerned, but the companies themselves see this as no joke. A Facebook post today from someone said this:
"If I see one more thing about this SOPA bill, I'm gonna scream. Everyone calm down. A bill doesn't mean it's a law yet. The thing you should be more focused on is the fact that Obama has already spoke out against it. He will veto it. Also, if there's a slight chance that the President passes the bill, all of your favorite websites including Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google, ect. are able to and probably going to form a law suit against the bill. It will go to appeals court and it can be ruled in our favor by saying they're infringing upon our rights for freedom of speech and freedom of press. It won't last if it becomes a law, but it probably won't even get that far. Stop freaking out on America and take a chill pill, jeez."
Alright, so Obama's got our back is what this persons saying. But I think it's also important to stand up for our rights. Put cho thoughts up here. | |
| | 1 | 1/24/2012 7:25 PM | IM Paper format So I'm still kind of confused about how our paper is supposed to flow. We talked about how the 5 paragraph paper is not ideal, but how we should move to new thoughts and each paragraph and progress, becoming more and more detialed. But isnt that pretty much what the 5 paragraph paper does? You start with the most broad ideas, and then narrow in on the key points that support your thesis. I don't know about you but I still kind of <3 the 5 paragraph papers. | |
| | 3 | 1/23/2012 5:07 PM | Peanut Butter Pie -- For 3rd Hour | |
| | 23 | 1/22/2012 8:57 PM | Where do our lies come from? We had the best discussion today in 3rd hour about lying. We put it into two categories: is lying natural, or does it evolve from civilization? We had good arguments on both sides. Some people thought that lying is a natural instinct we use to survive, sometimes even a defense mechanism. Veronica gave the example of the Angler fish. It lies by using a light attached to its head to lure in its prey. For centuries people ad animals have lied to survive. On the other hand, some argued that lying it brought on by the pressures of society, that we learn to lie early on. When we are kids, we learn that lying means we can get away with things, and as we get older we lie so that we will be seen in society as normal. We had a great discussion and I want to keep it going since I still can't decide what side I agree with more. | |
| | 9 | 1/22/2012 5:22 PM | Is selfishness merely an evolutionary inevitability? Okay, so i am fully aware that there are 3 other posts with similar titles to this already floating around on the boards, but just hear me out! This one has a bit of a twist.
So once again, we all know what the big question was the Chiz dropped on us on Thursday. A point that was brought up in class was that we as humans do awful things such as penning up cows, mistreating them, slaughtering them in cruel ways, etc. etc. Also, the idea of us hoarding food was an interesting one as well. How we are so ridiculously selfish that we stash food away that we do not even need. Animals only ever store enough food for them to survive, not stash pounds of food in a pantry whilst other people are starving.
At first, I thought that these were fool-proof examples as to how we as humans are evil, and unnecessarily selfish, and also that it could be avoided. Upon further thought though, I began to wonder, if the birds/cows etc. had the intelligence level that we have.... would they do the same things? Are we as humans merely the current evolutionary crux? The more I think about it, the more I wonder why we keep comparing ourselves to the "innocent" animals. Are the bunnies innocent because of their fabulous moral compass? Or are they just not intelligent enough to be corrupted? | |
| | 12 | 1/22/2012 5:09 PM | Is the oppression of others psychologically inevitable? So Mr. Chisnell brought this up in class today. We talked about how humans put themselves first in society. We are all the stars of our own movies, and when it comes down to it, we act based on our own personal advancement/maintance. I compared it to Karl Marx's utopian concept of communism. The reason that a pure communist society is considered utopian is because it can never be. Humans can never exist in a society where everyone is equal and the wealth is spread evenly among everyone. It is natural of us selfish beings to put down others for our own benefit. | |
| | 4 | 1/22/2012 11:27 AM | charities/selfishness in 3rd hour we discussed why people donated to charities, was it for the greater good or for themselves? We discussed the fact that celebrity icons donate to charities because not only does it look good on them but in the end they get more back. But i felt the best example of selfishness would be karma. Because we do good things so bad things don't come back to us. Which trains us to be good people with the mindset of something in return. | |
| | 2 | 1/22/2012 10:51 AM | Freedom of Speech and Internet http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
TED talks are pretty amazing, if you've got a spare couple minutes, watch this, and understand what the deal is behind the legislation going through congress | |
| | 9 | 1/22/2012 10:36 AM | What's up with this pattern? Most of the books we've read so far have been the narrators retelling the story-not proclaiming the story presenthand. In Turn of the Screw, the Governess' story is found by some other people and told as a ghost story (if I remember correctly). In Invisible Man, IM only narrates his present life during the prologue and epilogue. Now, in Heart of Darkness, Marlow retells his story while an old man, not while he's exploring. What's up with this pattern? At first, I thought the pattern was used to modify the story-teller's stories, but in order to get their messages across, the main ideas wouldn't be eliminated. Maybe each story has a different reason for following this pattern, but I don't understand why! | |
| | 3 | 1/21/2012 11:32 PM | Why are we here? Chisnell's question of whether torturing others is a psychological inevitability forced me to think in even bigger terms: why are humans on the planet? Of course while this is a very difficult question to wrap your head around, I think it's a necessary one to answer in order to begin to understand why we do things. If you believe that humans are here to dominate everything, that our treatment of the planet and its plants, animals, and resources is okay because we have a "higher understanding," then I think it is easier to imagine that it is impossible to avoid our destiny of hurting, enslaving, and dominating others--even other humans. However, if you believe that humans are here just as another part of nature, that our ability to build roads and manufacture things is just a part of our fitting in and does not make us better, than I think it's a little more difficult to say that domination is unavoidable. When I mentioned this in class, Chisnell said that this is one of the points of the AP Lit curriculum--literature as a method of understanding humanity's purpose. | |
| | 5 | 1/21/2012 10:08 PM | Judging Others Is it pyschologically possible not to judge someone by their appearance? I know that we all try our hardest to be nonjudgemental, but I think there's a difference between sizing someone up in your head but still getting to know them and letting your idea of who a person may be affect your perception of them. As humans, is it really possible for us to look at a person and literally think nothing until we can develop our opinion based on their actual personality? I think we all have pre-conceived notions of how a person that looks a certain way will act ("oh she looks like a slut," "what a tool")--I think that how we suppress these thoughts is a mark of how judgemental we truly are. | |
| | 12 | 1/21/2012 4:14 PM | Homeless Thread I know there was a thread earlier about homeless people, but I can't find it anywhere...and I actually have a story. I work downtown, and a few days ago a man came in saying he was being kicked out of the church he had been living in, and needed $2.50 to catch a bus back to his home town. Now generally I do not like being solicited for money at work, because I think it's very rude--even for someone in need, I feel like there is a general sense of common courtesy not to trap people at their jobs... Anyway. But this man offered to clean the store, saying he'd pick up trash outside and wash the windows, and this prompted me to just give him $5 of my own money. I'm usually very wary of giving homeless people money for a few reasons, one being I don't have any...and another what everyone says, that they're just going to spend it on drugs or alcohol, or even that some people that look homeless actually aren't. But the fact that this man realized asking for money from a teenager isn't very fair, and instead tried to be a productive member of society (even while down on his luck), made me decide that he definitely deserved some money. I would give money to every homeless person if I could, but of course that's not possible...the look on his face was definitely worth it. | |
| | 18 | 1/20/2012 6:10 PM | Fashion and makeup- what is it, really? So, yes, this is sort of related to the whole "What is art?" shindig, but bear with me for a sec because I don't believe this has been brought up yet.
It's often pointed out that society has an obsession with looking a certain way, and this is blatantly exemplified through the country's love of clothing and makeup. Okay, I get it, materialism runs rampant. But there are magazines that focus on it, industries that are run based on it, museums focusing on the impact it has. Clothing and makeup are a part of culture and history throughout the entire world.
The question I'm trying to get at is this: Can the fashion/cosmetic world be considered art? Is it ruining or wrecking us? If it is a aspect of society that displays evolution, is it really a bad thing? | |
| | 20 | 1/20/2012 4:11 PM | The Public School System
I know we talked about this a long time ago sometime at the beginning of the school year but on Friday during 1st hour Mr.Chisnell discussed how to organize our papers on the small detail/symbol we have chosen. He said that the five paragraph essay was invented just to give teachers in public schools an easier time grading. The rubrics that we received from teachers mainly only told us how to structure and form our papers nothing really on content and Mr.Chisnell pointed out that we could have written those essays on anything because they only told us how to structure it not what to write. It really astounded me how they try so hard to fit us into this mold and make us write with this formula. | |
| | 22 | 1/17/2012 4:24 PM | The show So, this doesn't have to do exactly with what we've been talking about in class but it's just another one of those things in society that I've wanted to have a discussion about. For starters, we all know who Lady Gaga is. She's loud, energetic, "unique" as most people say. And even though I do like some of her music, I don't like her. At. All. Notice how I put unique in quotes. We're all unique in our own special ways, and we all have out ways of expressing ourselves. I'm sorry, but showing up to an award show in raw meat... Is not expressing yourself. Now a days, it's all about the wow factor. Who can I out do this time? It's not about the talent anymore, it's about getting peoples attention and shocking them. It's not even about the music anymore if you really think about it. Same goes to Nicki Minaj. Yes, I love her music and I secretly rap "Super Bass" when I'm home alone, but she also does things for the wow factor. Her big hair and big poofy dresses distract from her music. And I'll admit, I did watch the Victoria's Secret fashion show this Tuesday, and I was in shock. Not because of they're cute underwear/ clothes (even though I do love to shop there, their yoga pants are the best...) but because of the show they put on. Half the time I wasn't even paying attention to the lingerie (sp?) because their wings lit up. And I did think about turning it off and going to bed, but I was so intrigued by the show they were putting, I could stop. Thoughts, opinions?? | |
| | 32 | 1/16/2012 2:35 PM | Violence vs. Sex In sixth hour today, we were talking about how in our society, violence is something that we don't generally have a problem showing our children, but sex is something taboo, not even to be talked about to the young, impressionable little ones who might get the wrong ideas. Is this wise, though? After all, sex is something that's a natural thing, while violence of a high degree isn't. As much as I wouldn't want my eight-year-old kid to know the intricacies of sex, I wouldn't want them to go out and shoot someone because they saw it in a movie. Many European countries, on the other hand, are the opposite. They show sex, as was said in class, 'honestly', while violence isn't shown on screen nearly as much, or to such a high degree. I thought that was interesting, the way that our cultures have developed different ideas of 'good' and 'bad' for kids. | |
| | 15 | 1/15/2012 1:38 PM | Christmas Elf: Elf on the shelf Every family I have babysat for this holiday season has had the "Elf on ther shelf." It is a little elf that sits up on a tall surface and watches the kids all day, then at night he goes and tells Santa if they have been bad or good. The parents move him to a different spot every night so the kids think he is magical. They even have a movie called elf of the shelf which seems to be a new phenomenon amongst young children. The elf on the shelf doesn't look like a "normal elf" in my mind. He is wearing red and has on a red and white santa hat. I always imagined an elf in green and yellow. It is interesting because Mr. Chisnell said that the image of Santa, elves, ect changes from different generations. In the minds of the young kids an elf looks like "the elf on the shelf," while in my mind an elf looks different. | |
| | 9 | 1/15/2012 12:29 PM | Names as Signifiers So as you may or may not know, Beyonce had her baby...and the consensus (at least that I've seen) is that her name is Ivy Blue. People of course are freaking out about this, as they do when pretty much any celebrity has a baby and names it something unconventional. It seems to have become a trend of famous people to name their children names that aren't considered "normal," but that got me thinking..what is normal anyway? Why is one set of letters and syllables that make up "Jessica" okay to name someone, but "Blue Ivy" is just too out there? Our names identify us, but when you think about it they're completely random. I mean, I understand that some names (Apple and Blanket, for example) are signifiers for other things and are therefore a little strange to name someone--because you don't think of a person right away--but names like "Summer" are acceptable...it just doesn't make much sense. | |
| | 11 | 1/14/2012 10:09 PM | The Hipster Curse So, this is just one of my many ramblings, it doesn't necessarily fit in with anything we have really discussed in class, so just indulge me for a moment please.
So I work with this fine, upstanding citizen who shall be called Joe Smith, for the sake of privacy. He is one of those guys who verbally abuses any and every song that comes on the radio because it is all "trash", and who has a bone to pick with every mainstream thing that is currently in our pop culture. He even found a shirt at work that he really liked, and it looked good on him and everything, but he didn't know if he wanted it because it was "a little bit too trendy". My question is, at what point does the "Hipster" attitude turn into a conscious effort to be contrary? I understand that yes, music today can be annoying and ridiculous, ad that a lot of the current trends are verging on psychotic, but when does being "too cool for cool" actually turn into its own ridiculous trend?! When my coworker, Joe Smith decided he was too cool to shower... I lost it. That is either A: extreme laziness, or B: part of a new ridiculous trend.
Thoughts? | |
| | 8 | 1/10/2012 10:24 AM | Structuralism Vs. Power of Suggestion Sometime this week, after we were talking about the whole Little Red Riding Hood story we started discussing some of Disney's other works of fiction and where they were adapted from. I believe we were discussing the sexual undertones of Sleepy Beauty when someone answered Chisnell by saying "Now that you mention it, I do see it." I'm starting to feel as if there is an extremely fine line between structuralism and power of suggestion. Maybe this is my lack of knowledge, but even as I look at Little Red Riding Hood now, (the American version we learned growing up) I still don't see the idea of molestation that was presented during discussion in my most natural mind, but with Chisnell's voice ringing in my head I can stretch to see it. What do you all think? | |
| | 4 | 1/8/2012 6:27 PM | One Last Christmas Post (at Least from Me Because I Can't Control Other People) So I've noticed it shocked some people that Christmas is not really a Christian holiday but to be honest I never thought of it as such, despite going to a Catholic school and being raised Catholic In the church Easter is a lot bigger of a holiday but Christmas was viewed as Jesus' birthday and celebrated as such, but of course it didn't feel right because I never viewed it as a religious holiday but more of a season of gift giving, revival of childhood, family etc.
But that doesn't make it any less of a time to celebrate which is my next point. Just because Santa and Rudolph are advertisement schemes and the Catholic church moved the date to gain followers does not make it a holiday to frown upon. I almost feel like that was what everyone gathered from Chisnell's little expose and I felt that way too. But as I celebrated the holiday I didn't think about it too much. I still love Rudolph and I still see Santa the way that he is portrayed by most of the media and I don't see anything wrong with that. | |
| | 5 | 1/8/2012 12:28 PM | New Year's Resolution My AP Lit New Year's resolution is to post more efficiently throughout the week. By this I mean that I will try to post more throughout the week instead of one big load Sunday morning. Now that I am all settled from break, I believe I have the capability to do this and it will be beneficial for two reasons: it will allow myself to learn at a more efficient rate, as I will be able to follow along with the discussions more frequently, and it will lessen the amount of rants and condescending posts by the curmudgeons of this website who do not appreciate those who post on weekends. So if anyone would like to join me on this New Years quest for greater knowledge, come along and be merry. If you would rather continue to post all on the weekends, I completely understand. Trust me, I do. | |
| | 10 | 1/8/2012 9:46 AM | The Evolution of Santa Claus While the evolution of pagan rituals and holidays into Christmas was of course interesting, the most fascinating part to me of the onslaught of holiday season facts we received was about Santa. The fact that the image of Santa we all know and love has only been around since the 1920s is so strange to me. He's everywhere, from our beloved holiday movies to gift bags, from advertisements to Christmas cards. There is little variation on portrayals of Santa Claus, and almost everyone (at least in the US) has that exact picture in their heads. But it hasn't even been around for 100 years! The image adored by millions was created by a soda company. How backwards is that? This picture that is used in every Christmas movie, in all Christmas cards, originated as an advertisement! The Santa you and I know was not the Santa little kids waited for 100 years ago. It's just so fascinating to me that an entire civilization can change the image of an idol so easily, and accept it so readily. | |
| | 15 | 1/8/2012 9:41 AM | Why Easter Sucks and Christmas is Awesome? Mr. Chisnell the other day during his Christmas lecture compared the importance of the date of Jesus's birth and the date of his Resurrection to Christians, coming to the conclusion that the reason Christmas is on December 25th instead of Jesus's actual birthday is because Christians at the time didn't care as much when specifically he was born. And therefore, he concluded, Christmas became more of a Pagan holiday with a Christian NAME (think the links made between drunk nakedness and caroling, and the origin of the Christmas tree and gift giving and Santa Claus) and Easter developed into a holiday with a more traditionally Christian meaning and way of celebrating. Could this be the reason why Easter sucks and why Christmas is awesome? I mean I'd much rather be getting belligerently wasted and walk around naked (although maybe not in subzero weather) and get and give presents and decorate my Christmas tree than wake up early to go sit in church all day... Do you agree that the difference between how much pagan influence which can be found in each holiday could be a factor? (I'm not trying to hate on Easter or Christian traditions, I'm just saying!) | |
| | 6 | 1/5/2012 10:01 PM | CHRISTMAS DOMINATION So as I am sure we all know, Christmas is a time when people go crazy to buy last-minute gifts, make Christmas cookies, watch Christmas movies, etc. etc. But this year, thanks to Chisnell, I have been viewing all of these activities in a new light. When I nearly got run over at the mall yesterday, I didn't think about how it was almost understandable because people have gifts they need to buy, I was incredibly angry because all of it seemed like an enormous waste of time! Is buying people shallow gifts worth possibly running over little old innocent by-stander me?! This whole Christmas institution is just silly! I spent so much money buying people gifts that they probably won't even like, and then they spend their hard-earned money getting me a gift, that I might not even like! So basically, what I am getting at is that Christmas seems to have been turned into something a bit over the top that it should not have been turned into. Yes, I am being grinchy, but I am just disappointed with the whole commercial bastardization that has occurred with my once favorite holiday :( Thoughts? | |
| | 11 | 1/2/2012 8:05 PM | A Certain Frustration of Mine (Part Deux)
So about a week ago, I posted a rant about how I was annoyed that people reacted somewhat immaturely to our discussion of Freud. Quite a few people seemed to agree with me, while a few others (well, one other) seemed to perceive my post as a misogynistic attack, and that I had initiated some kind of gender competition in which I would find "the tables soon turning".
Anyhoozles, in the subsequent week, we began to learn about Freud in my psychology class. The teacher had said earlier in the year that she thought Freud was rediculous, and I was fine with that. Freud, like Kinsey and Nietzche, had his fair share of criticisms, and several of his theories had holes in them big enough to fit a sphinx through. During the week, however, it seemed that the teacher would stop every few sentences to repeat how "crazy" Freud's theories were. When we were learning about Freud's theories concerning childhood, she would mockingly state that she had never thought of children as being sexual creatures. Clearly she had never read any medical articles on childhood masturbation. Whenever someone asked a question about Freud's theories, she wouldn't actually answer them, but rather dismissively say, "back to the cocaine" (if you don't know, Freud was a frequent cocaine user, a fact I was aware of before I began learning about him in the class). It annoys me when a teacher is so blatantly trying to condition their beliefs into their students. Before we watched a documentary about how in 1943 the American government created a psychological profile of Adolf Hitler using Freudian psychoanalysis, the teacher mentioned that she would skip the parts that were "too Freudian". If we're skipping the parts that are too Freudian, WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT IN LEARNING ABOUT FREUD?! Am I the only person who thinks that teachers should at least attempt to be objective? | |
| | 17 | 12/19/2011 11:52 PM | It's "wrong". Today in class, we were discussing the 'original' Little Red Riding Hood, and someone said that he didn't like it because "it just seemed wrong". I think this is really interesting; since the story is told to make the female the hero, and the wolf the passive 'villain' (I think he's the villain. I don't think Little Red would be the bad guy, at least in this version - though of course I'm not sure), it seems off. People say that our media is becoming more equal in its portrayals of gender, but I don't think this is so. If that were the case, I don't think people would be nearly as disturbed by the movie as they were (barring the cannibalism, I mean).
I was disturbed by it as well, and it took me a while to figure out why. It didn't really 'ruin my childhood' for me, as has been said, because this felt like a different story. When I really think about the message that the story is sending, I like it quite a bit more than "Stupid Little Red can't figure out that her grandma is the wolf and he rapes and eats her, so a nice Huntsman comes to save her", but on the surface, when we all watched it, we were disturbed, and didn't like it.
I think it's really interesting that for as progressive as people try to say we as a whole are, people are still put off by this sort of thing.
Thoughts? | |
| | 0 | 12/18/2011 6:26 PM | Satan Claus It appears that not all Christians are as ignorant of Christmas's pagan past as one might think.
| |
| | 9 | 12/18/2011 4:28 PM | Just some more Red Riding Hood... I don't know why, but even after watching that disturbing version of Little Red Riding Hood today in class, I was still really intrigued by how the fairytales we have grown up with all our lives have evolved from their origins.
So I reluctantly I googled "the original Little Red Riding Hood," and found some interesting things. Charles Perrault wrote the first printed version of this story. It has the same sequence of events but in the end he eats her. Perrault said that the fact that this story did not have a happy ending was to support the moral. He explained his moral to the story as this:
From this story one learns that children, especially young lasses, pretty, courteous and well-bred, do very wrong to listen to strangers, And it is not an unheard thing if the Wolf is thereby provided with his dinner. I say Wolf, for all wolves are not of the same sort; there is one kind with an amenable disposition – neither noisy, nor hateful, nor angry, but tame, obliging and gentle, following the young maids in the streets, even into their homes. Alas! Who does not know that these gentle wolves are of all such creatures the most dangerous!"
I thought this was amusing. Thoughts? | |
| | 4 | 12/18/2011 4:22 PM | Anthropology bits and pieces... So I have been pretty confused as of late, when we learned the actual origins of the LRRH story today, I found it very interesting, and moderately entertaining. But what I am struggling with, is what this says about the French culture where it originates from. The original story was one of sexual awakening, does this mean that the French are a more sexual culture? And furthermore, doesn't this just condone further stereotypes, that the French are sexualized, and the Germans are conservative? Analyzing LRRH: Untamed and Uncut is making me call into question many of the stereotypes I have become acquainted with, and questioning their validity... I'm going to attempt to spit out what I mean more visually, because I am having issues articulating here...
Women are bad drivers----> Stems from UR-code saying that women are inferior---->evidenced by classic literature in our culture.
Since France's classic literature is not about male empowerment per se, but also female sexual awakening... would they not then have the stereotype of "Bad women drivers"? And where did our UR code come from? And what makes it different from other cultures' if we all originally came from the same culture? SO MANY QUESTIONS!! | |
| | 9 | 12/18/2011 12:32 PM | Santa! So, basically, as these lectures usually go, the Christmas lecture today made me question and rethink everything I have ever been taught pertaining to Christmas and the likes of it, ever. It's always so cool to learn about the backgrounds of these holidays in some ways, but in others it can be kind of upsetting! Which, I guess, is just part of our learning process. We all have the shocked moments when the true meanings behind some of these things are revealed, but it all comes together and starts to make more sense, and I think that's one of the more exciting things about these sorts of discussions!
I think it's interesting that one group (i.e. the Christians) can piece together different parts of history and string together one holiday, some parts even coming from religions and societies that they may not necessarily approve of, and then other groups with seemingly not that much power (like Hudson's and Coca Cola) can create their own ideas to add in and society just accepts it! Christmas has drastically changed over the years and it will probably never been a set-in-stone kind of holiday, where all of our supposed "traditions" stay the same, but I think that's what makes it such a fun holiday! | |
| | 20 | 12/17/2011 10:04 PM | Men As Sex Objects? We've been talking a lot recently about Little Red Riding Hood and how woman are perceived as being helpless or as being sex objects. That got me wondering if the opposite has happened. Thinking about it, I have realized that women are quite capable of objectifying men. Think of Twilight. Almost no physical description is given to the female protagonist, but the male romantic interests are all described in meticulous detail. Go to Barnes & Noble's (I shall miss you, Borders, my old friend) and find the section that sells those cheap paperback romance novels. What do you see on the cover? Men with long blond hair and chiseled abs. There's a fascinating article by Vicky Allan about how the "Bond girls" have changed over the decades. One of the points she brings up is how in the more recent "Casino Royale", starring Daniel Craig, less emphasis is placed on the bodies of the female characters and more emphasis is placed on Bond himself, particularly in a beach scene where Bond is shown rising from the water in a tight swimsuit. It's a fascinating article, and has a lot of insight into how the perception of woman has changed. There are also some rather fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) discoveries about Ian Fleming, the man who wrote the Bond novels.
| |
| | 2 | 12/17/2011 9:32 PM | Twelfth Night Impressions Twelfth Night at the Bonstelle was great! I thought all the actors were superb (although some were certainly better than others) and there were only two or three times that I noticed someone stumbling over their lines, and they quickly regained their composure. Feste and Malvolio were particularly entertaining. The events were pretty much as I had pictured them in my head, although Sir Andrew was a little more....fruity than I had imagined. I did think it was a little weird that Viola was played by a black actress and her twin brother Sebastian was played by a white actor. Over all, I very much enjoyed it. | |
| | 7 | 12/17/2011 8:04 PM | Pour Soi or En Soi? What I want to know, is which is considered better, pour soi or en soi?
Better as in, the one we as human beings should be striving to acheive.
What I would also like to know, stemming from that; Is the one we should strive for deemed such because of Pour soi thinking, or en soi?
Parallel to that, is society deciding which one is ideal, or are individuals coming to a consensus? and does that in the end mean that society is deciding?
I think I missed the day in class when we discussed this, so maybe my question was answered. | |
| | 11 | 12/13/2011 8:14 PM | The Cock (G/Crows) At The Rising Sun I had a bit of a daydream in class today. It was mainly kicked off by Kate saying "phallic" which occurs a few times every class period. But today was different. As I looked outside into the courtyard I saw one of the infamous East Courtyard hawks perched on the roof ledge. Autumn has surely concluded as this bird was a chubby one, and had had it's furry fill. Anyways, as various synonyms of penis filled my head, coupled with seeing the now squatting bird, it hit me. Cocks carry reoccurring double meanings, the birds that is. The phallic and fowl connotations of cock go like this: cocks arise with the presence of the all encompassing giver of life, the sun/ woman. OR think of it this way, both women and sun are consistent in presence, bring warmth, light, pleasure, and life to all males, whether they seek it or not. Sorry for the incoherent rambling, maybe someone can elaborate on my thoughts. I swear that I'm not out to make penis jokes for dicks, er, kicks. | |
| | 16 | 12/11/2011 2:48 PM | The Real Reason I Think I was Bothered by "The Story of Grandmother" Thinking back to that fateful day where we all watched a rather surprising version of "Little Red Riding Hood", many of us felt immediately uncomfortable. Besides the usual weirdness (i.e naked 10 year old seducing, cannibalism, poop) there was something else I felt was very off abut the film. I think what didn't sit right with me was how the story seemed to full of femininity. Little Red Riding Hood was clearly the crafty cunning girl that could do things without help of a male figure, but I think the fact that the wolf too seemed to possess feminine qualities, yet still desired a girl, was contradictory to the story. Kind of like a gay guy trying to rape a girl. How can that happen? | |
| | 12 | 12/11/2011 2:34 PM | Am I the only one that got it wrong? Okay I'm just going to put this out there and hope there is someone on the same page as me. When our class watched the LRRH movie, I was obviously stunned but at the end I didn't get it. I was like what? The innocent little girl got away from the big bad wolf, then waited for him, then escaped again? I couldn't figure out why she did that. Then Mr. Chisnell made the comment about seeing something we're not used to "the girl seducing the man." Then, I rethought the movie and realized that he was right and I had gotten it all wrong and that I had obviouslyyyyyyyyyy gotten it all wrong. I just think it is interesting that even after watching her eat her grandmother's flesh and getting in bed with the wolf and seducing him and leaving, I still pegged her as the victim who got away... | |
| | 4 | 12/11/2011 1:08 PM | Society's Choices of Archetypes We as a society technically choose which archetypes to adapt from, and, in essence, everything w choose has a correlation to a positive or negative archetype. Red Riding Hood for example, was provacative, seductive, and gruesome. But we, as a whole, CHOSE to adapt from this story. Were we ignorant and our subconscious chose for us? I strongly believe so. Our freudian complex highlights ID, the animalistic and instinctual part of a humans mind. We were born with this ID, and the want of sex and violence. Is it ironic that red riding hood appealled to our IDs, and we chose to adapt it to a children's story? A story read to children who's own IDs are raging(according to freud)? are we feeding our subconscious with the archetypes we choose? are we weakening our egos and superegos early on? Red riding hood was shown, originally, as a seductive and sociopathic young girl who outsmarts the wolf. Was her ID dominant? Thoughts? | |
| | 12 | 12/11/2011 10:32 AM | Euphemisms! Ryan Tarr and I had a conversation this morning about euphemisms. dont you hate them? This goes along with our discussion of signifiers and signifieds...For example, someone says "I have to use the little ladies' room." Why cant you just say you have to pee? It's very Victorian...there seem to be little sects or subcultures of people that regularly speak in euphemisms, and seem to be offended if someone says something too bluntly. Any thoughts? | |
| | 19 | 12/10/2011 10:37 PM | Women CANNOT do anything. They must be damsels in distress. Active females in any disney, or any film before the 20th century really, are portrayed as bitches or muderers. Excuse my language, but it is true, and here are afew examples- The queen from Snow White. Cruella Deville from 101 dalmatians. The step-sisters from Cinderalla. All of these women are portrayed in a very negative light, when all they do is take action. | |
| | 11 | 12/10/2011 7:18 PM | A Certain Frustration of Mine Ever since we have started studying psychology, I have noticed a pattern developing in the posts which I find extremely irritating. Many people (especially girls) when encountered with ideas or situations that involve sexuality and/or offer insight into the human psyche, are quick to dismiss such concepts as "gross". I find this to be extremely ignorant and close-minded. For example, I'm not saying that you have to agree with Freud's theories about the Elektra and Oedipus complexes, but at the very least you have to understand and listen to these theories. If you disagree with them, you should give more reasoning why than "Freud is gross because he wanted to have sex with his mother". Instead, perhaps you could argue that you feel Freud's theories are flawed because they were influenced by his own feelings towards his mother. If you don't want to discuss something intelligently and intellectually, perhaps you should find a different class. Okay, sorry if this post got too preachy, but I wanted to rant against something that has been annoying me the past couple months. | |
| | 2 | 12/4/2011 4:54 PM | Little Red Riding Hood When we watched the French version of Little Red Riding Hood, it took a lot of people by surprise. It just wasn't natural. The big bad wolf was femine in this version and little red was seductive. We find it odd because this is not a normal archetype. Usually the girl is the damsel in distress while the wolf takes advantage of her. In this story little red was in control and had the ability to choose what she wanted to do. Since I was raised with a certian way of thinking, this version seems wrong to me. | |
| | 5 | 12/4/2011 12:16 PM | Little red In little red riding hood, the women are portayed as weak, and in need of saving. When we read this story, we, as children, are given the notion thatonly not straying fromthe path(from rules and laws), willprotect you from the wicked. We also learn that men can be one of two things, the wold (evil), or a lumberjack (good), while women can only be good. | |
| | 20 | 11/28/2011 9:32 PM | AP Lit, I've got a bone to pick with you...
Okay guys, I understand that we're all under a time constraint and have to fulfil a quota of weekly posts, but please, I am begging you - why are we posting questions that have no room for discussion because they require such a simple answer!!!
I do not think it is right or fair or even worthwhile to post about being confused as to an exact theory or passage in the book or line of poetry AND THEN LEAVE IT THERE WITH NOTHING MORE TO SAY. If you're asking for opinions on it, then yay. Good. That is exactly what this discussion is meant for. If you're confused as to what exactly the nuances of the differences of en soi and pour soi, then wonderful. Yes. That is what this discussion is meant for. However, if you don't even have a clue as to what they are and don't even know where to begin, don't post about it yet. You're already at a computer. Look it up. Do you really want a grapevine version of the theory through the other students? That's not going to help in the long run. We only ever so briefly touch on some things, especially theories, in class. There's so much more to Existentialism than what's printed in your course packet or what we may have gotten around to in class (Mr. Chisnell even included disclaimers in the packet: "Many versions/views of existentialism - these are broad strokes"). Do you really think that you're going to have a firm grasp on Moralist Criticism after a few people have tried to explain it via post reply? If you feel that you don't understand Existence Before Essence, do some Googling before you post. There's just no way class time allows for a thorough explanation of these concepts. The online discussions should be dissecting the fine points of these topics, not basics. It's just not fair to limit things to explaining the concept of what we could be discussing the examples, applications, and implications of. Now, a question like, "were the ghosts really real or in the governess' head?" That merits discussion. Saying, point-blank, without any further questions posed or points made, "I don't understand pour soi..." really does not. I'm not saying read the entire Kafka anthology before posting about it, or that we should all be experts already. Nor do I mean for those little comments that clearly aren't "substantial posts" to be done away with (and those comments almost always call themselves out on it anyways). I'm also not saying that each post should be a well-crafted masterpiece of language - no way is that fair. This is a class for learning. But it's also supposed to be getting us college credit; really, it's supposed to be equivalent to a college class.
I hope I haven't offended anyone, and I'm certainly not worked up at individuals. This has just been bothering me for a while. | |
| | 6 | 11/27/2011 2:00 PM | Disney movies... again. Yes, yes, I know. Disney movies are brought up a lot in this class. But hear me out, okie doke? Okie doke.
So, in my French class, we were watching Lion King 1 1/2 , which is essentially Lion King but told from Timon and Pumbaa's point of view. I tried to find a Youtube video, but apparently they have every part but that online. But here's the part of the script I'm talking about:
Timon: What's the point? All we do is dig so we can hide, and hide so we can dig. I wanna be where we don't have to dig tunnels and live with our heads stuck in the sand. What's so bad about dreaming of a better home?
Ma: I wanna show you something. Look, Timon. Go on, look. Look out to the horizon, past the trees, over the grasslands. Everything the light touches... belongs to someone else!
What really caught my attention about this was the "head in the sand" bit. Isn't that how we describe en soi thinkers? If you think about it, the main character in every Disney movie is always trying to burst out of the main stream, think for themselves, have an adventure, despite what their en soi, "go with the flow" guardian is telling them. Is Disney trying to form pour soi thinkers? | |
| | 0 | 11/27/2011 1:48 PM | En Soi/Pour Soi...again? After two weeks of existentialism, the topic of en soi/pour soi seems to have been the only concept discussed on the "Class Concepts" board. I honestly think we've exhausted the topic, and it would be beneficial to move on. I wasn't expecting such a burst of posts on existentialism, because it seemed like a simpler idea than the other theories we have learned. In a basic sense, all it's saying is that the majority of people do not make logical decisions, and act based off of their emotions. Perhaps some new topics need to be brought up, instead of recycling old posts and repeating similar questions every week. | |
| | 11 | 11/27/2011 1:15 PM | Does Pour Soi really exist....?? So, I expressed my complaint in sixth hour, but I'm still feeling a little skeptical. How is it possible to make a completely pour soi decision? We are constantly flooded with information, opinions, ideas, facts, rumors and they all sneak into our subconcious and just chill there. Therefore, with so much "external" information in our brains, it seems unlikely that we will make a decision 'on our own.' And even if we could, how could we prove it? There ain't no way. Of course, I understand that some things we do may lean farther toward pour soi than en soi... For example, walking through a ladder because someone told you not to (en soi), vs walking through a ladder because you were going to do it anyway (pour soi-ish). I don't know, it just seems that pour soi would have more thinking going along with it, and in this case, it doesn't! I guess my biggest issue is that pour soi and en soi cannot be proved, so how do they really exist? Help me out, folks! --And don't respond with Santa. | |
| | 8 | 11/27/2011 1:04 PM | Some more existentialism--6th hour! 
Coincidentally, I came across this picture after school on Thursday, the day that our sixth hour had a very lengthy discussion regarding just these two things! The discussion orginally began over a poem, then gradually begame an intense debate over en soi and pour soi, and whether or not it is fair that big corporations encourage people to buy things they know are bad for us. Is it morally correct for tobacco companies to sell the public little sticks of cancer? Probably not. But does it make them money? Yes! And are they legally allowed to? Yes! And are most people aware of the effects of cigarettes? Yes, and yet they continue to smoke them. We discussed whether this was an en soi or pour soi decision, and who is at fault. McDonald's also came into the picture... We talked about how people eat a lot of fast food, get fat, then complain that it was McDonald's fault, and not their own. However, they're the ones that decided to eat all the food in the first place! Then I said I wanted fries, and wondered if this was an en soi decision (listening to people talking about McDonald's and decided that's what I wanted too) or pour soi. And if I'm conciously allowing myself to be manipulated by the corporation because I actually occasionally enjoy eating their food, is this en soi or pour soi? Ahhh... I just liked this picture because I think it says a lot, and just connected so well with sixth hour's discussion! | |
| | 2 | 11/27/2011 1:04 PM | En Soi and Pour Soi I'm still a little confused over these two concepts. I know that Pour Soi is being an individual and living for yourself while owning your own choices and En Soi is when you don't own your own choices. What I don't get is how you can't have regrets while being Pour Soi. Sometimes you don't always know what will happen and looking back you can see the choice was a bad one. I just don't understand the concept. | |
| | 7 | 11/27/2011 11:40 AM | Extensionalism in Media So, I was reading Teen Vogue because I'm so classy, right? But anyway there was an article about being excluded and they brought up extensionalism and said this "extentionalists argue that such profound solitude is the unavoidable human condition"
So of course as an extentionalist you would agree with this but I have a question for you guys, do you think that being excluded is an unavoidable human emotion? And also, how do you guys take this quote? What do you understand because of it? | |
| | 15 | 11/27/2011 11:28 AM | "Art is born from pain." Sometime last week, in third hour, the class was discussing why we never read any happy poems. Chisnell then stated that "Art is born from pain." Now, I am not going to disagree with this, but is art ONLY born from pain? No. I believe that art can be born from all emotions and feelings, not just pain. Art can also be born from joy and happiness as well as despair and frustration. Does anyone agree? Disagree? Feel free to give examples. | |
| | 4 | 11/27/2011 12:28 AM | Is en soi necessary? I don't particularly like the way existentialism is worded, and I do think existentialists have a massive superiority complex, but there is some solid theories in the concept.
The main thing I agree with in the theory is that there are people out there that just follow. However, these people are no less important than those that lead. There has to be followers. They are just as essential to a society as leaders are. Without followers there is nothing to be led. It's all about balance. Any thoughts? | |
| | 8 | 11/26/2011 12:09 PM | clarification: PLEASE!! I do not claim to have a very good grasp on this concept of pour soi v. en soi...This question might have already been asked but I still dont get it so I am going to ask again:
How can any person make a choice that is wholly their own if that person does not know themself completely (hello unconcious!)? So how can anyone actually be pour-soi in any of their "choices"? What if we are subconciously compelled by an unknown desire or whatever? Then wouldnt all of our choices techinically be considered en-soi? | |
| | 11 | 11/25/2011 9:38 PM | Freud's weird psycho-sexual development Freud once said, "I found myself a constant love for my mother, and jealousy of my father. i now consider this to be a universal event in childhood". He calls this the Oedipus (after Oedipus Rex) theory. I think we discussed this a little in class, but we talked more about how girls are often "secretly in love with their fathers". Personally, I don't agree with this at all. It's kind of icky and although i guess it has been proven that many girls fall for a man that smells like their father, no one is actually in love with their dad. After reading a little bit about this theory i almost feel like Freud came up with this theory to cover up his awkward feelings for his mom. I mean, everyone loves their mom but i don't think it's to the point where they're actually jealous of their dad. Its just a Really strange theory. | |
| | 5 | 11/25/2011 1:23 PM | Narcissism According to Freud there are two types of narcissism: primary and secondary. Freud states that primary narcissism is not as "abnormal" as one might think. He claims that it is a person's instinct to think only of themselves as a sort of self preservation. He calls it one's "instinct to survive". Secondary narcissism occurs as a person nears adulthood. They find themselves seeking the approval of others, perhaps in achievements or popularity. a person will even go so far as to changes aspects of themselves to gain this gratification. I find Freud's theory intriguing. In both types of narcissism a person is concerned with only himself. In primary he is interested only in fulfilling his own desires, and in secondary he is focused on seeking the approval of others. I think this theory is surprisingly accurate! | |
| | 2 | 11/25/2011 1:18 PM | pour soi v. en soi During Rachel's poem the other day, we got on the topic of how people will blame cigarette companies for having lung cancer, or McDonalds for being fat. I stated quite frankly that you cannot blame the companies because we are the very base of their success. If these corporations are evil, then so are we because without us they cannot thrive. It's no different from the Micheal Vick scandal a couple of years ago. He didn't actually fight the dogs, he just funded it. Yet, we still all consider him inhumane.
We have plenty of knowledge about the bad things that come from smoking or eating Big Macs, but we still do it. Then we will go back to blaming those companies when we die from lung cancer at the age of 60. I think that most of the people that spoke out against blaming companies for their products effects are the same people that blame their teachers for a bad grade.
So, if you were happy that you Mr. Chisnell said you were pour soi for saying those things, it's possible that you don't act pour soi, you just speak it. | |
| | 1 | 11/24/2011 4:41 PM | Origins of Archetypes Here's my theory on where archetypes come from. I think archetypes have developed as a way to help humans identify certain facets of the world. The dark forest archetype taught children that it was dangerous to be alone. The seductress/femme fatale archetype became a symbol for the potential of men and women to be corrupted or seduced. These archetypes give us a canvas on which to paint all the aspects of the world and ourselves that we don't want to acknowledge directly. Take vampires, for example. In Slavic folklore, vampires were mindless, bestial corpses with little other motivation than to feed on helpless humans. It wasn't until the 1700s that literature began to portray vampires as seductive aristocrats sipping red wine in ominous castles. This is best exemplified in Bram Stoker's classic "Dracula", where Jonathon Harker becomes paralyzed and excited by the "voluptuous red lips" of Dracula's three vampiric brides, or where Count Dracula forces Mina Murray to drink his blood, a scene clearly evocative of fellatio. The vampire archetype then became a symbol for the repressed sexual energy of the time period. At least, that was the symbol until Twilight came along, where vampires became a symbol for giant, sparkling pussies. | |
| | 7 | 11/20/2011 5:37 PM | Archetypes I was thinking about what we discussed in class and how archetypes are in every good movie, story or book. What I really want to know is where archetypes came from. Did we develop them over time, or have they always just been in us? | |
| | 11 | 11/20/2011 5:07 PM | The Subconcious Freud believed that many people repress painful memories deep into their unconscious mind. Freud also knew that this repression was not a conscious effort, people are often unaware of the fact that they have buried their traumatic experiences and memories. After thinking about this theory i was left wondering about what memories i am repressing that may be the root of some of my fears today. For example: I am scared to death of spiders. Does this mean that i was hurt in some way by spiders while i was really little? Or have i always been just creeped out by the gross way they scuttle around and devour their prey? Is Freud's theory trying to explain away all of our irrational fears? Or perhaps just some of the worst ones? | |
| | 4 | 11/20/2011 12:01 PM | Lousy experiments, ftw Okie dokie, so sometimes last week, I made a post about the homeless and how we make them invisible to us. This was really starting to bother me, because I hated the idea of making people feel inferior. So, I decided, you know what, I'm just gonna smile at everyone. That may help a bit, right? So I went for a run on... Wednesday? The day's irrelevant, actually. But I went on a run, and I smiled at everyone I saw. Well, those who were on the same sidewalk as me. Four people. Here's what I found in my unofficial, improvised experiment:
Person #1: Middle-aged male neighbor, raking leaves. He was the only one who genuinely smiled back. He was standing on his own property, so I think I can confidently assume that he's not homeless.
Person #2: Younger woman, probably late-20s, walking down Woodward, dressed all fancy. I tried to make eye contact, but the second I did, she proceeded to stare straight ahead. I smiled incessantly, but she never acknowledged it.
Person #3: Older woman, I believe she was homeless. I was running through an alley when I saw her, and when I smiled, she stared through me. She didn't smile back, or ignore me. She stared right on through, like I didn't even exist.
Person #4: Older man, walking his dog. I smiled, he very faintly and briefly returned it, then shifted his eyes to the other side of the sidewalk.
So there are my results. They actually unnerved me a little. I don't know what I was expecting, exactly. I suppose I thought that people would smile back automatically, as long as I did. The most unsettling response was that of the homeless woman. I've been complaining about making them feel invisible, but perhaps it's the other way around. Maybe they don't depend on our kindness as much as we expect? Maybe it's become the norm for them to be ignored by us, maybe we're the ones invisible to them.
I don't know if anyone's read The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls, but that memoir addresses the issue of homelessness in a first-hand account. Walls' parents both made the choice to be homeless. Their children made plenty of money and constantly offered it to them, yet the parents consistently declined. The memoir begins with Walls spotting her mother digging through the dumpster and Walls hiding in shame. "What could I do? I'd tried to help them countless times, but Dad would insist they didn't need anything, and Mom would ask for something silly, like a perfume atomizer or a membership in a health club. They said they were living the way they wanted to."
Why do we automatically assume that life has a lower worth if people don't have the same amenities as us? Why is it considered "weird" to smile back at a stranger?
This experiment most definitely isn't scientific at all. I mean, heck, I only smiled at four people. And who knows, maybe it made more of a difference than was reflected. But it got me thinking. Who are we to hold ourselves above others based on our material possessions? Maybe we're the ones who deserve to be made invisible. | |
| | 7 | 11/20/2011 11:24 AM | I wind, I wind, my true love to find, the color of his hair, the clothes he'll wear, the day he is married to me. So On Oct 31st, or halloween, Mr. Chisnell told us three spells. But I will refer to them as superstitions. He told us about one that could only be done at midnight on Halloween, so I figured why not? So I went to a place were supposedly there would be spirits, I threw a ball of yarn and till the very end I repeated: I wind, I wind, my true love to find, the color of his hair, the clothes he'll wear, the day he is married to me. "Supposedly" at the end of rolling up the yarn I should feel a tug on the yarn and POOFF the man I am going to marry will magically appear. Well it didn't happen and if anyone ever wants try it my advice it to use as little yarn as possible because it takes forever to keep winding it! | |
| | 10 | 11/20/2011 11:17 AM | Disney Movie Archetypes I was just watching the Lion King, and it got me thinking about just how many Disney movies fit classic archetypes in society, and how they generally follow patterns that, as Chisnell said, are deeper than "plot-level". In the Lion King for instance, Simba's father it taken from him quite early on in the movie. He struggles with his identity throughout the film, and he does not succeed until he realizes that he can move on without his father's presence. This is very similar to Harry Potter, or at least Chisnell's interpretation of him. The role of the father figure is a recurring theme in Disney films, and it seems to reside with so many of us because it has deep roots in our collective unconscious. | |
| | 8 | 11/20/2011 9:03 AM | The "Perfect Woman" I didn't know whether this should go under Class Concepts or Poetry and Other Art, but it's going here because even though the conversation stemmed from a poem yesterday, it turned into something a lot bigger than that! This is a "women's insecurities" sort of post. Yesterday Rachel presented the poem Lipstick on the Mirror by Tom Disch in 6th hour, which led into a long discussion about why women are so self conscious and whose "fault" it is that we are this way and various other aspects of a similar conversation. The poem basically works at women's views of themselves and how they view the "perfect" woman. It shows how women strive to be like someone, but even that person isn't perfect to herself. One of the main things we talked about was how women are pretty much other women's biggest competition in that they would rather dress up and look nice to impress other girls than they would for guys, because guys don't necessarily care what you dress like, but girls will judge you for what you're wearing for whatever reason. And, I thought this was really strange, the effect girls can have on each other. It seems like we're our own worst enemies, when in actuality we should be our biggest support because we can more easily relate what the other is going through. I don't think it's necessarily "all society's fault" that we are this way, though it must have some influence. Though we make our own choices and can think whatever we want, it's hard to avoid what seems to be shoved down our throats mostly through advertising, but also through the view of this perfect girl that we get starting at a young age. The conversation stretched a lot farther than this, so what do you guys think about how the skewed view of the "perfect woman" is affecting girls from across the board? | |
| | 3 | 11/19/2011 10:24 PM | ... I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone? I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone? I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone? I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone? I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone? I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone? I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone? I agree. This is so interesting. Summarizing. Fascinating! I like this interpretation! Yes. No. Anyone?
This should get counted. | |
| | 11 | 11/18/2011 1:39 PM | Evil --> Impurity A question raised in class this week was "What is evil?" The dictionary definition is "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked." Because the word "moral" is thrown into the definition makes it all the more complicated. In my opinion, a more in depth definition of evil would be the alteration of purity. Consider Miles and Flora in Turn of the Screw, and how the Governess were afraid of the ghosts being evil and turning her perfect, angelic children into something impure, or corrupted. This is also seen in horror stories where when a killer kills the two drunk teens having sex on a boat, the killer is creepy, but when he kills the protagonist, someone innocent and pure, a virgin, they are seen as truly evil.
| |
| | 2 | 11/13/2011 11:19 AM | Peter Pan On Friday in 6th hour we talked about Exisentialism and did an activity. When we had to pick a modern scene that fit on of the stages. For angst I thought Peter Pan would fit perfectly. In the movie Peter doesn't want to grow up (so that fits the "fear of the future" aspect). Not only does he just not want to grow old but he also doesn't want to take responsiblity for things. That's why it was great for Wendy to come around because she was a great mother figure for Peter and the other boys who weren't ready to grow up. I also thought "oh Twilight would fit well" and the whole Bella not wanted to grow up works but it isn't because she doesn't want responsiblitly..it's only because then she'll be all old and grandma looking and Edward will still be young. Peter Pan fits better and it also isa better movie then Twilight, even though I'm a pretty big fan. | |
| | 9 | 11/13/2011 11:11 AM | Narcissists want weddings, not marriage I was doing research for another class and came across this headline. Naturally, it was accompanied by a picture of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries, but the article applied this to the public. Apparently, narcisstic marriages are an increasing epidemic in this country. According to the article, more and more young couples are getting married just because they feel "entitled" to a lavish wedding, and not because they want to spend the rest of their life with someone. Of course, completely giving yourself to another person is very difficult for a narcissist to do. But having a day entirely devoted to them is exactly what they want! According to psychotherapist and divorce coach Micki McWade, narcissism is the ultimate relationship killer (second only to addiction), and a significant factor in many of the divorce cases she has witnessed. I think it's interesting, though, that people are so quick to claim others as "narcissistic." Sure, we all have narcissistic tendencies, but when does someone cross the line from selfish and self-serving to being an actual narcissist? That seems like such a serious label. Of course these traits are very obvious in a person like Kim Kardashian... All she talks about is herself, she is a workaholic only to further her own career, her marriage to Kris was all about the fantasy wedding she had had in her head since she was a kid, and not about her fiance and their life together...Yeah okay, so I love Keeping Up with the Kardashians. But I think it's interesting that people we would label "narcissists" are also the people we idolize and put in the limelight--Charlie Sheen anyone? | |
| | 12 | 11/13/2011 11:01 AM | Doing things on purpose? Today in 3rd hour, we were talking about how people do things for a specific reason. Someone had brought up about how if a girl dresses like a slut, they want all the attention they're receiving. Someone even said that if she gets raped, she's asking for it. Personally, I kinda of disagree with this. Lila had said that she might just be comfortable in what she's wearing, and we got on the subject of maybe not even caring what people think. I can personally relate to something like this. A lot of people make comments about how much make up I wear (and I tend to wear a lot) but it's because I want to. So may people have told me that I don't need it, I shouldn't wear it, blah blah blah... But that hasn't stopped me. I wear make up because I want to, because I like it. So, telling a girl they look like a slut probably isn't going to stop them from dressing like one. | |
| | 5 | 11/13/2011 9:42 AM | en soi and pour soi Today in first hour, Chiz presented the idea of en soi and pour soi i.e. the reaction-choice versus the cognitive choice. I don't know if he portrayed it this exact way in other classes, but in ours he asked why we were in class. Immediately everyone said because we had to by law, to which he said we were exemplifying en soi living. But aren't we really there, following the rules, so that some day we can make them? In other words, aren't we living "pour soi-ishly" en soi so that we can graduate college to live entirely pour soi?
Just a thought. | |
| | 16 | 11/13/2011 1:25 AM | The homeless and invisibility In class on Friday, we talked briefly about how we are trying to make the homeless invisible when we quickly walk by, ignore them, or claim to have nothing for them when we actually do.
Anna Marck and I were discussing this afterwards, and we were wondering, what's the solution here? It isn't possible to give money to all the homeless in the world. Is it enough to just acknowledge their existence?
Besides this situation making me feel like a crappy person, it really made me wonder... how should society go about making everyone "visible"? | |
| | 2 | 11/12/2011 4:28 PM | HP connection! J K Rowling, you never cease to be awesome. I was watching the Chamber of Secrets tonight and something Dumbledore said was so entirely Sartre-y that I couldn't help but post about it. At the end of the film, Dumbledore tells Harry that it is our choices that define who we are. He alludes to the choice Harry made to be sorted into Gryffindor instead of letting the Hat put him in Slytherin like Voldemort was. This choice meant that Harry was pour-soi, because he weighed what he knew about Slytherin and what happened to those who were a part of it. Now that I think about it, Harry's life is almost entirely pour soi. His concious rejection of the darker side of magic and ultimate(***spoiler alert if you haven't read the last book!) choice to allow Voldemort to kill him is pretty much what pour-soi is all about yes? no? what do you guys think? | |
| | 3 | 11/9/2011 5:25 PM | Perception of Truth In class on Friday, I believe, we talked about surrealism. We spoke of how the Governess from Turn of The Screw was perhaps mixing reality with her unconscious, giving her the visions of the ghosts. In Invisible Man, the IM gets quite high, listens to music, and seems to fall into a sort of dream sequence. These surreal experiences make us wonder, what really happened? Were the ghosts actually in the house, or did they only exist inside the Governess' mind? How much of the IM's experience was from memory, and how much of it did he create in his imagination? This is where we can begin to differentiate between the words "literally" and "truthfully". | |
| | 1 | 11/6/2011 7:12 PM | Archetypes
The archetype conversation got my thinking about the movies I have seen and the possible archetypes that repeat over and over again. I have come up with some basic archetypes that appear in movies that I have seen. For example the wise old man or wise old woman can be a mentor for a character going through a difficult time in his or her life. In the original Star Wars films the wise old man archetype was represented by both Yoda and Obi-wan. In Disney fairy tales this is the Fairy Godmother, the one who gets Cinderella ready for the ball. In dramas like Good Will Hunting, the wise mentor would be Robin Williams'.
Another one is the shadow, it is the dark side of human nature, and while it's usually represented by a villain, it can also be represented by an antihero. Famous villains that personify shadow include Darth Vader from Star Wars, Agent Smith from the Matrix, Voldemort and the deatheaters from Harry Potter, and most wicked witches, like Maleficent in Disney's Sleeping Beauty. The villain can sometimes actually be the dark side or shadow of the hero. This ups the ante, because the hero's weaknesses become the villain's strengths. The villain is what the hero could become if he fails in his quest, or his qualities could overcome the hero if he lets them. | |
| | 27 | 11/6/2011 9:53 AM | Freud: weird or a genius? Okay so like i said earlier i think Freud is fascinating! But i didn't like the conversation we had about like girls basically being in love with there dads and boys being in love with there moms. It creeps me out majorly. Like i think that girls do try to find someone like there dad but when Mr. Chiz said we are secretly in love with our dads that was too much for me! I love my dad but im definitely not in love with him and that's just really weird to me! So i feel like most of Freud's theories are spot on about our subconscious coming out through our conscious but some of his other ideas are really weird and too much for me! | |
| | 2 | 11/6/2011 9:22 AM | Modern archetypes I found an article on BBC News the other day (link) about four television archetypes, which they referred to as the "independent woman", "man of the house", "misfit", and "crusader". The article also goes further and says that these archetypes are influencing the way society acts, but is that really true? Isn't it more likely to be the other way around? We like characters that we can relate to and are realistic. The article also talks about how the archetype has evolved, and I feel like the description for the "independent woman" is especially telling of how society influenced these archetypes. "When TV began, women were only ever portrayed as perfect wives. 'You could not build shows around them,' says America in Primetime executive producer Tom Yellin. 'The evolution of the independent woman on television follows women's evolution in society.'" So I disagree with the BBC here, and say that similarities to fictional characters are from fiction imitating reality, not reality imitating fiction. | |
| | 9 | 11/6/2011 12:08 AM | Horror- it's all in your head? Okay, so I've been thinking a lot about what Chisnell said in 6th hour on Friday, that horror isn't bloody corpses or decaying zombies, rather that fear is entirely psychological.
I was coming on to make a post about this, and then I saw this video on the homepage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2PsNnj1ftQ. I watched it, and it really threw me for a loop. Is it possible that fear only exists when our preconceptions about it are met? Everyone knows that the Sound of Music is not a scary movie in any way (she make matching outfits out of curtains and they sing together on bicycles, come on) but piece together quick ominous clips with some creepy music and boom. It registers in your mind as a horror flick.
Do we develop fear of things just because they're presented to us and are told, "This is scary, be scared"? Are scary movies not really scary at all? | |
| | 0 | 11/5/2011 11:15 PM | New Criticism The new criticism theory prided itself on scrutinizing literature solely on the text. It analyzed the structure of the work, it's metaphors, parallels, and paradoxes, but it excluded any personal and outside biases. It also had some sort of rule in which it had to remain perfect for 50 years or else it didn't count. Well, i agree with this theory. I think that literature should not be a fad that is popular for a short amount of time but then quickly fades away. It should remain a part of the literary community for many years and continue to be a respectable piece of work. | |
| | 10 | 11/5/2011 10:20 PM | Iceberg Principle In first hour, Firdays class dicussion was about the Hemingway Iceberg Principle which really showed that movies have no depth, they only goes as far as the plot. The plot resembles the tip of the iceberg that can be seen above water, but literature goes deeper moving to characters to conflicts to the theme. Movies are unable to capture all those key points deeper than the plot. | |
| | 9 | 11/4/2011 8:56 AM | The Dr. Brennan Attitude--Psychology is nonsense I don't know how many of you have seen the show Bones, but in it the main character, Dr. Brennan, goes off on these tangents about how psychology is a lucrative science that is more fiction than hard fact yaddah yaddah. Although I've always been very interested in this field and the types of hypotheses that guys like Freud and Erikson propose, I can't help but partially agree with her. There are so many "what if" and "in some case" scenarios that how can it be possible to nail down every variable to make a complete equation? Isn't psychology just pulp fiction?
| |
| | 3 | 10/30/2011 3:14 PM | What depicts good from evil? Mr. Chiz brought up this topic in class during our discussion of horror, what can truly depict what is good from what is evil? Some ideas that came up were:
Society: when you go aganist laws (murder, stealing, etc) or the laws of religions (cheating, lying, etc); Personal: moral ethics, having or not having control over yourself
How do these define what is good and evil? Isn't there a really fine line between someone doing something that's evil but for a good reason? I'm just confused... | |
|
|
|
|
|
|