Small Details- Big picture

Wharton focuses his attention in this novel on many minute details. Every detail that a character does or thinks is meant to be scrutinized. This may be to show how people are truly scrutinized and analyzed to the highest extreme at all times by the upper echelon of society. One example of the attentive nature of Wharton is seen through the facial expressions of Lily. They hold serious importance in conveying her emotions. The two major expressions that Lily shows are blushes and smiles, which are regularly repeated throughout the novel, taking on very different meaning, and always providing good clues tot he current emotional state of Lily.

Success

"My idea of success," he said, "is personal freedom."
Freedom "from everything- from money from poverty, from ease and anxiety, from all the material accidents. To keep a kind of republic of the spirit- that's what i call success." (70)


Seldon's idea of success is one that I believe all people are able to relate to. It is miraculous to think of how much pressure society puts on people that revolve around the material aspects of the world. All of this pressure by society certainly affects everyone. And because of this pressure, how many times do you, as an individual want to escape it all? This is the idea of success that Seldon has. He thinks success is some way of escaping it all. Escaping from the pressures that surround people every day of their life.

Class Struggle

Marx tends to portray the struggle amongst classes as a negative concept. We did disprove some this by saying that he disagrees with the exploitation of the proletariat not class struggle, yet I still believe that he perceives this struggle as unnecessary. I however believe that it is this class struggle that keeps our society strong. Without the struggle and competition, people in society would not be nearly as motivated and therefore would be far less productive. Although some people receive the short end, it is almost a necessary evil. This class struggle is the driving force behind progress and the betterment of society as a whole.

Greed

"The only wheels which political economy puts in motion are greed and the war of the greedy, competition" (59).
I believe that this is the driving factor behind many if not all of Marx's policies. He tries to alleviate any competition among individuals by equalling out every persons status. If everyone receives the same, then people won't be motivated by their greedy desires to advance beyond others. In policy, Marx's visions and communism eliminate any type of competition in the economy.

class discussion

Today in class, my group and I presented the the idea that people work in order to survive. This reminds me directly of what Darwin would be saying. We are all driven by forces to survive and Marx is trying to persaude us that work is the means of survivng and therefore without work, we would not be able to produce and or support for yourself and family.

capitalism

Marx's hatred of capitalism seems to spawn from what he coins the "exploitation of the proletariat". I believe that Marx exagerates the exchange between capitalist and proletariat in an attempt to sway the reader into believing the "real truth". Page 215 states his opposition towards capitalism, but this is a point that I would strongly contest. Profit and accumulations of wealth seem to be the underlying entities that Marx opposes. I, unlike Marx, do not see wealth as a negative quality. This does not mean that the exploitation of the lower class is wrong, however the proletariat is not always exploited in order to gain wealth.

Means of production

Something in Marx's writing that intrigued me was his position on what separated humans from animals. The idea that resided within most is that it is our intellect, or our soul that truly distinguishes man from beast. Marx clearly takes his stand, opposing this theory by stating that it is actually man's ability to produce for himself rather than intellect or consciousness. What I find most intriguing about this is that he almost totally rejects the importance of consciousness altogether. In my mind, there is no way to reject thought entirely. I do not rule out Marx's theory of what separates man, none the less, I can not accept his rejection of thought.

Family

Marx uses the term "family" in a number of statements directed at the bourgeois. He speaks of the "Abolition of family!", but what exactly does family mean. Is there any underlying meaning behind the word?Pages 172 and 173 abound with the usage of the word, but there is no clear meaning.

communist goal

There is one goal of the communists that resonates throughout the entire piece of literature. That goal is of absolute overthrow of existing customs and traditions. Marx states, "communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." Communists desire to shake up the current standings of people and break down the class barriers, and to do so, he utilizes communism and the ideal of social revolution.

Class struggles

"Every class struggle is a political struggle." (pg 166)
This brief excerpt by Marx is what I believe to be the most important quote of the section. It defines how Marx sees the class struggle between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. According to Marx, the struggle between these two groups boils down to the issues within politics such the loss of jobs and businesses to the monopolies of big business. This political struggle to rid the nation of big business is the root of the class struggle that arose.

Machinery enslaves man

Both Marx and Gandhi have similar thoughts with regards to machinery. Marx believes that "they (the proletariat) are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine..." (165) Gandhi's view is remarkably similar. He believes that machines or railroads actually detract from the over all progress of the nation, much like Marx states. These two similar views theorize that machines are taking away more than they are giving back to the nation. These parallel ideals have similar foundations as well. The foundation of both is meant to free the proletariat/ Indians form the overbearing actions of the bourgeois/English.

Visuals

Page 42 contains two powerful metaphors used by Gandhi to express why brute force should not be used. He states that "it is possible" for us to use brute force to regain control of India, "but by using similar means we can get only the same thing they got... It is the same as saying you can get a rose through planting a noxious weed." (42) The analogy of getting a rose (a self ruled nation) from a noxious weed (brute force) is an intelligent and powerful analogy.
It returns to his concept of good and evil. Gandhi stated how it takes time for good to occur, whereas evil "has wings" and goes immediately to the top. However, the victory of evil is temporal and shallow.
In the analogy of page 42, Gandhi is advocating an alternative to brute force. An alternative that will create a rose, a self ruling nation.

Foreigners

"India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not necessarily destroy the nation; they merge into it... That country must have a faculty for assimilation." (26)

This seems to go against the ideas we laid out in class. We had agreed that people should be tolerant of other nationalities entering into our own nation, however it seems that Gandhi wants those people who enter into India to lose their sense of national identity. Gandhi seems to expect people to conform to the ways of his nation.

Railroads

Gandhi takes a distinctly negative stance on the addition of railways. He states that, "it is beyond dispute that they propagate evil." (pg 24) Where the English stated how it connected the nation and therefore should unite the people together as one. This is where a connection to current times occurs. Today, when we see a new piece of technology, meant to make life easier, we automatically assume that it is for the betterment of society and that it is a step towards progress and the future. We often fail to see the negative aspects that are associated with almost any piece of technology. The Internet is one such example. The pros heavily out weigh the cons, however the cons are still present and have a resounding effect on people today. It takes away from the face to face social contact that is imperative to becoming a functioning individual.

Railroads to Gandhi seem to take on the same role. Although it does connect the country and make transportation more convenient, it does not cloak the problems that still exist. Gandhi speaks of how, "I do not wish to suggest that because we were one nation we had no differences, but it is submitted that our leading men traveled... They learned one another's languages and there was no aloofness between them." (pg 24)

The Internet today and the railroads of Gandhi's time, although completely different, encounter the same difficulties.

Nationalities

Today in class we talked about how America is the only nation that defines themselves by another nationality i.e. Irish-American or Italian-American. The reason for this could be due to a number of things, but i think that the most plausible answer may come from our past. It is only natural that because there was such a mixture of nationalities, people wish to stay close together with people that they can associate with. Most of other nations share a common lineage, however, Americans draw from such a diverse pool that most do not share in a common past. Therefore, people want to be with other people who have experienced the same things, and their way to do so was to bulk together, for example Chinatown, or Little Italy. All of these things carry over and contribute to why we think the way we think today.

Good Men

There are a number of situations in which N. attempts to define a certain group of people by one term. One example of this is his concept of "good men". What truly makes a good man? How is one person able to label an entire group and yet not be able to define what makes this person "good" or "bad"? This is a certain topic that doesn't seem to make sense to me because I do not think that N. is the man that should be appointed to label an entire group of people.

Memory retention

While browsing other blogs, I picked up an idea that struck me in Alex's blog. The quotation on page 61, "If something is to stay in the memory, it must be burned:only that which never ceases to hurt stays in the memory", is an exact quote that interested me while I was reading. I think this is an interesting thought and although it may be harsh, its not totally unrelatable. We don't see the everyday extreme punishment that Nietzsche may be speaking of, pain is one of the best ways for people to retain information. If you go through a situation that is truly painful, it is not easily forgotten. Sometimes, the situations that hurt us the most are the things that stay with us the longest. You may want to forget these things, deleting them from your history, but they never seem to leave.

Suffering

If there is one point that I agree with Nietzsche wholeheartedly on is that of the idea of suffering and not letting ourselves feel pain. We have to feel pain to feel human. No one enjoys going through the suffering that comes with life, but you must endure this and not numb yourself of the pain. If you never feel hurt of a sense of loss, than you can not truly appreciate what you do have in front of you. You have to deal with grief, hurt, hatred and other sensations of pain to be human and understand all that is around you.

Sea animals

In class today, we discussed the imagery of Nietzsche and more specifically, the metaphor concerning the "situation that faced sea animals when they were compelled to become land animals" (84). Nietzsche thought that there "has never been such a feeling of misery on earth" (84). However, when I thought of this metaphor, I was reminded of a saying my crew coach would tell us during many of our practices. He would tell us "to row and think outside of our comfort zone. Because if you live outside of you're comfort zone, you're going to be more alert, more active, and more understanding." This saying made me think of the other side of this "feeling of misery", and focus on how it also made them think, leaving them constantly aware; because they were outside of their comfort zone.

Ripe fruit

Nietzsche presented the visual image/metaphor of a ripe fruit from a tree. Nietzsche states, "The the ripest fruit is the sovereign individual... liberated again from morality of custom... the man who has his own independent, protracted will" (59). By this definition, a ripe fruit, or sovereign individual is a person who thinks on his own, against the standards of society and customs of religion. This individual is described as a (sensation of mankind come to completion", an "emancipated individual", and a "master of free will" (59). So this individual is relieved from the constraints of society while being completely in control of choice. The opposite of this individual in the "late fruit" (60). This Late fruit is the opposite of the ripe fruit. The late fruit sits in the tree to long because it can not escape the pressures to conform with the rest of society. Where the ripe fruit falls the ground or is plucked form the tree, the late fruit fails to leave and the tree, rotting away because it steals from other individuals ideas or adopts the ideas of society.

Bird of Prey

To elaborate on some of the issues that I had presented in class concerning the bird of prey metaphor; one subject being the issue strength. The Bird of prey I believe is meant to convey power and strength over others (the lamb). If someone has considerable power, why waste it. Nietzsche may be trying to tell people to stop being timid and shying away from situations in which you utilize your power. A person with strength, should be expected to act accordingly, and therefore a weak person must follow in line and act according to their set. When Nietzsche stated, "To demand of strength that it should not express itself..." (45) he may be implying this very concept. That people are expected to act a certain way because of strength or power.

Style

Nietzsche has a distinct style when it comes to persuading his reader. What I gathered from his writing is that he doesn't seem to be bothered if the reader understands, however, his writing style is methodical and purposeful. One point that seemed to be recurrent throughout was the use of question and answer. This seems to be how Nietzsche opens up almost every different section. When reading each section I inevitably fall into a pit of confusion which seems to deepen if you don't understand the direction that Nietzsche is going. However, each section seems to almost have an outline of issues that he plans on discussing, and if/when you get confused, refer to this outline to be somewhat relieved of the question, "What is Nietzsche trying to say?"

Hate from religion

"The profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values." To understand what Nietzsche is trying to say, I think we need to step back and reanalyze what hate truly means, or what it means to Nietzsche. If we look at this at the surface, its reasonable to believe that he is taking stabs at religion for brainwashing the masses. However, what does he mean by hate? Could Nietzsche actually mean ignorance instead, for if so, I would agree. A person can not take the religious belief at face value and apply it to every facet of life. This is the first institution that i have attended that has no affiliation to religion, and I still maintain a descent understanding of religious beliefs, yet I know better than to allow religion to control how I think. I can believe, but when it comes down to how I view the world around me, I use my intellect. This might be what Nietzsche is trying to make us understand. He may not be a blatant persecutor of religions; Nietzsche may be attempting to convey the necessity of your own intelligence to create meaning in the world.

Personal Bias Arguing Religion

The last section abounds with personal bias concerning the subject of religion. Nietzsche does not try to hide his emotions when he speaks of the evil and the states that it is because of the priests "Impotence that in them hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions" (Nietzsche 33). He then switches from attacking religion and priests as a whole to isolating his hatred and distrust towards the Jewish race. Despite this obvious hatred towards religion and especially the Jews, Nietzsche wavers against this hatred and points out inconsistencies in his ideas of distrust. He stated that out of the Jewish hatred comes a sublime love. This pure love grows out of the hatred as a crown. This is where Nietzsche loses me. This is a topic that could lead to interesting debate in class, for I can not grasp what ideas are leading towards. I do not understand how love can arise from a "poisonous hatred", and furthermore, I do not understand the associated analogy.

Introduction to Nietzsche

My first thought on Nietzsche's work is utter confusion. The concept that intrigued me the most concerned the idea of good and bad people being judged not by their actions or based off morality. Nietzsche states, "I'm supposing the "good man" to be of greater value than the "evil man", in greater value in the sense of furthering the advancement and prosperity of man in general" (Nietzsche 20). So Nietzsche is stating that man should not be viewed or considered bad based solely off of morals, however they should be judged by their contributions to society. He goes as far as say that the "Future of man is included" (Nietzsche 20). So as far as Nietzsche is concerned, a murderer could be considered a good man if he contributes positively to the progress of the world or contributes to the success of our future. I find this to be both an intriguing aspect yet disturbing cold and malice. This leads me to believe that Nietzsche has no regard to human well being, merely the well being of humans as a race, creating his perfect world, one that is unflawed by the hands of God or any religious affiliation. This concept of good and evil in man obviously shook the very ground that people stood on for his concepts completely oppose the ideas that stand and that have been ingrained the minds of people.

The meaning of Tao

When I was presented with the issue of choosing ten lines in Tao Te Ching, I found it difficult to isolate just one passage. So instead of adding lines that i believed to be irrelevant or less important to the issue at hand, I chose to pick lines from 3 separate passages. The first that i chose came from page 8 and dealt with an analogy utilizing water to convey non action or passiveness. It states,
"Best to be like water
Which benefits the ten thousand things
And does not contend
It pools where humans disdain to dwell." (8)

This is something I found to be of the utmost importance because Lao-Tzu stresses a laisseiz-faire style and the being of non-action. When you understand the passage, you understand that water stops when it comes to a blockage in its flow, whereas if humans encounter a problem, instead of being patient and using the Tao of non-action, humans fight and try to find ways around the situation. There is no patience in their action and therefore it is right o be like water.

Flow and Entertainment

There a couple of unique aspects that strike me in Rives. The first aspect is at some points less noticeable but is nonetheless omnipresent. This aspect is flow and rhyme. Rives carefully selects each and every word that he utilizes. He uses descriptive words that often abound with rhyme and always transfer easily to the next word he selects. Rives' word usage is powerful and directly plays into the next aspect that intrigues me. This is entertainment. Often, Rives draws his entertainment value from word usage, yet other times I draw interest from his usage of hand gestures and excitement that constantly keeps the listener interested in his points and the knowledge that he is trying to convey.

"Poet or puppet"

Rives proposed the question, "Am I a poet or a puppet?", and what this brings me to is the debate between poet and performer. Rives is energetic, enthusiastic, and holds the audience as if a comedian would do. He makes extremely enthusiastic hand gestures that not only captivate the person watching him, but also enables him to persuade people to believe what he is saying. I say this because if a person enthusiastically believes in what they are saying, I am more prone to believe this and therefore the opposite applies. If someone were to perform something lackadaisically, than I am more likely to be unconvinced of their argument. This is where Rives begins to transcend performance and become a poet. It is through his energy and spirit that the audience becomes captivated not only in his actions on stage but the words and their meanings. Rives thoughts and concepts portrayed through his action on stage is what makes him a true poet. His words hold power and his concepts are ones that seem virtually untouched. Rives speaks of many things in his poems however, a reoccurring theme in his works are the power of words. Many of his sets are devoted to the comprehension of words. Rives is a performing poet, one that possesses extraordinary intelligence, uniqueness, and enthusiasm.

Unlock the Air

What can words do? What power can words convey? Rives made use of this notion. He analyzed something no one else may have thought before. The thought of "mockingbird Molotov cocktails" doesn't mean putting birds in a burning bottle, but that there is a specific power in noticing the words of others. He spoke of listening to how people communicate, the way they interact, and the notion that whatever they may be saying, it is still important. He wanted to "unlock the air" and understand what everyone was saying. The quotation that shook the entire poem was when he said he wanted to "unlock the air, I'll listen to what's missing, and I'll put it there." He wanted to find out what people fail to say and what could or should be said. To Rives, it appears that speech is something of untapped potential for power. What a person form any aspect of the world may or may not say is of the utmost importance. What he spoke of sounded like a form of eavesdropping in which he finds what goes through the very mind of the every person.

Personal Tao

Ku shen fei tao wei
Strong body is not the way to power and success

Strength without determination,
reaps few benefits
strength without confidence,
leaves much to be desired

This is called the Te of determination
this is called the power of mind over body
this is called the Tao of success

I intended this personal Tao to reveal the power that the mind has over the body. It points out two specific aspects of the mind, determination and confidence, with regards to performance. These two attributes aid in permofming to the maximum of your abilities and they are often the difference between under and over acheiving. This does not discount certain physcial impairments that may impede with some activites, nor does it say, for example, that a 140 pound person could fight a proffesional boxer with just determination. There needs to be a healthy balance between body and mind.

Opposites

"Act without acting
Serve without serving
Taste without tasting" (Lao-Tzu 63)
There are opposites to everything in life and this is one aspect that I find completely interesting. That you can find the definition of one thing by analyzing its opposite. There is never one true clear definition because it is always built off of something else. This is something that Lao-Tzu took advantage of, and that is still apparent today. You can pick up a dictionary and every word that is defined is defined based off of another definition. Where is the starting point or the first piece of this building block? Is there one word that all others are built off of? This is what I thought when looking at the way that La-Tzu makes his statements. He utilizes opposites to clearly convey the other half. This reveals the fact that when one aspect of life is understand, so is its opposite. So there is no good, without evil. No success without failure and so on. One aspect of life is therefore revealed by the understanding of another.

Darwinistic thinking.

I found it hard to isolate one subject of interest that could be analyzed or of interest to Darwin. The first thing that came to mind is the number of offspring or progeny that are produced by two parents. In almost all species, whether it is moths, flies, birds, and humans, the parents produce more progeny than parents. So two parents may produce six children out of which four may survive. None the less there is still an increase in the species number that may be controlled in lower species by predators or diseases. However what may this next large epidemic be for humans. Humans have no predators, and are affected less than lower species by diseases. In the past we saw a large portion of the population wiped out by epidemics such as the Black Plague, but what might this next large scale catastrophe be? This is what interested me most when i looked at the number of animals and people outside. This curiosity led me to think about how nature always seems to level out the populations of all species, because the earth can only support so much life, after which, it fails to yield enough food, disease ravages the populations, etc. There is always an evening out process, but what will the next one be? Is there any way for us to predict our future demise? Is there any way that we can continue to reproduce and have children at the rate we are at right now? These are all questions of which I do not know the answer.

Taoist thinking.

Taoist thinking involved clearing my head completely. Letting everything of that day just roll off my shoulders and what I encountered was a time that where at first i felt anxious but gradually eased into a relaxed almost trance like state. After I cleared my head, just concentrating on the rhythm of my breathing (I've had some prior meditation training), my brain was soon free of the distractions and I could only think about what makes me happy. I thought about what situations could rival the clarity of meditation and realized that surfing, my favorite past time while at home, was a very meditative state. Surfing was a time when i would be by myself in the environment that cleared my head of problems. My mind was nearly empty, completely without any negative thoughts. The meditative state that i spent ten minutes under, cleared the head and relieved the stress as only surfing could do. It is an alternative for me now that I am so far from the place that I adore. What intrigued me about this was how my mind in one second could wander from emptiness to joyous memories. It revealed to me that the human mind does not want to be empty. No part of human existence wished to be empty or alone, and this transcends just meditation. I believe that this is exactly what the Taoists wrote about. It takes determination to clear your head of the infinite distractions in life.

Variations

An issue that intrigued most about today's conversation in class came from the discussion of small changes or variations that truly make a difference in the success of a species. Darwin stated, "these slight differences make a great difference in cultivating the social the several varieties, assuredly, in a state of nature... such differences would effectually settle which variety... should succeed" (Darwin 178). This observation in peaches concerning smooth or fuzzy makes you wonder how many other small variations are simply overlooked. We take for granted many of the small variations that make us effective individuals. For example the history of humans would be drastically different had we never adapted to have a thumb to grasp objects or form tools. How could this have changed the type of individual we are today? What i took form this is that even a small variation that on first glance may seem unimportant may truly be something of paramount importance towards the fitness of one species.

Observation

Dining hall abounds with physical and communicative interaction. It is a social place where people come to not merely get a meal, but also to recount stories of the weekends or what happened in that day. So when the challenge was presented to us to observe a situation, I immediately thought that there is no greater place to observe than in dining hall where people a truly in a social state. As Darwin stated, there are things that "we do not see, or we forget" to see, and that "we do not always bear everything in mind" (Darwin 165). I observed how people interacted with others, and the wide array of emotions that are exhibited by the variety of personalities that interact with each other. I also observed how important hand gestures and physical actions are towards achieving a reaction in others. The people that were truly interacting and seemed to be making the most rouse out of their audience were the ones who expressed action and enthusiasm, two characteristics that seemed to go hand in hand. This was by far the most interesting observation that i had because you could see that hand gestures made a significant addition to the conversation without having any verbal association.

Morality and society/individual

As Darwin states it, morality has a direct correlation to what society perceives as "right" and "wrong". However, I do not completely believe that this can be true for society is completely susceptible to fads, trends, and popularity swings. When you see the current swing of society, you realize that morality can not be left in the hands of a society so easily swayed from left to the right. One example can be seen in the current shift towards television almost embracing or encouraging alcoholism. Commercials that are typically comical in nature permeates the television air, portraying alcohol as something that is socially acceptable, even for the younger ages. From this, you can see how society can show something that is not always in the best interest of the general public and portray it as something that is "right". Darwin placed society as responsible for morality however it should be left in the hands of the individual.

Diversification

"So in the general economy of any land, the more widely and perfectly the animals and plants are diversified for different habits of life, so will a greater number of individuals be capable of there supporting themselves." (Darwin 197) Upon hearing this statement i immediately thought outside of the spectrum of natural selection and applied this to the diversification of people and communities. While attending my high school, I was able to travel to Costa Rica and Italy with classmates and teachers, all in attempt to assimilate a knowledge of the culture. I believe this greatly contributed to a better understanding of other people. This thought that with greater diversity of life styles comes greater knowledge applies directly to the concept of understanding. I acknowledge the existence of other cultures and wholeheartedly believe in the ability to assimilate one culture into another. this applies both to Darwin's natural selection and my point of diversity within cultures.

Man's selection vs Natural Selection

Darwin rants about the superiority of natural selection over man's selection. This may be because he created this theory, but I as an unbiased reader must beg to differ. This is not intended to debunk or degrade anything that Darwin did, yet it is meant to build up what Darwin attempted to tear down. Darwin stated, "How fleeting are the wishes of Man... and consequently how poor will his products be." (Darwin 177) True, the wishes man are fleeting however they are poor by no means. Man has been able to compile some of the most impressive feats that that are definitely comparable to that of nature. The power and beauty of nature can never be appreciated enough nor should it be underestimated. However, this applies as well for the power of man. True to Darwin, we must not neglect nature, but under the same notion, we mustn't believe that nature alone can create greatness.
A statement such as this is definitely out of the ordinary for me. Typically I would side with the naturalists, praising the beauty of nature, but it isn't often that Man is the being that is underestimated. Man has an immense power that is often used against the betterment of nature, so to state that the product of man is something of inferiority is absurd.

Prejudice

Most of the time, when you hear of the phrase prejudice, you automatically have a preconceived notion in your mind that it has to do with race, religion, etc. However in the opening of On the Origin of the Species, we come to understand that what Darwin intended to do with this piece of literature was not only to explain a new theory of existence, but also to debunk former beliefs and to "call attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views." (Darwin 157)

Socrates and analogies

The power of analogies is made clear when Socrates speaks of his "solar eclipse". Socrates stated I feared that my soul would be altogether blinded if I looked at things with my eyes and tryed to grasp them with each of my senses. So I thought I must take refuge in discussions and investigate the truth of things by means of words." (Phaedo 50) Immediately after reading this portion of the work my mind was clear. I took my own stance on what Socrates stated and I understood this as meaning you cannot merely rely on your outward perceptions but conversations and actual facts. People to often depend on what they see therefore forgoing the actual facts and overlooking the truths of the situation. As is characteristic of Socrates, this relates back the search and grasping of truth. However, this analogy is one that clearly conveys the necessity of investigation on truth by facts and words, rather than a brief outward perception.

Socrates own connection

In the last excert of reading of, Plato's Phaedo, Socrates is found explainig himself and his action of committing suicide. However, in the process of explanations he spoke of making connections, or recollecting knowledge as he referred to it. Socrates spoke of how "the sight of one thing makes you think of another, whether it be similiar or dissimilar, this must of necessity be recollection." This immediately made me think of our assignment and how we should be made to think. Socrates is excellent person to modelyour thinking after. He analyzes every scenario, finds the most rational option, but importantly does what most people don't do, he thinks. Now obviously everyone thinks, but how many people think outside of the box (cliche). This is something that transcends Socrates and the immediate question of knowledge and simply goes to the heart of everything you have ever "learned"

Fear of death

The connection that I made in the last section of reading concerned Socrates discussion of death and the fear that was often associated with it. On page 32, Socrates states, "to fear death, gentleman, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not... No one knows whether death may not be one of the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils." This immediately of my Irish family motto. My Gaelic name was Ryan and the adjoining motto was Malo Mori Quam Foedari or Death Rather Than Dishonor. I completely believe in this thought, and i believe that Socrates does as well. Socrates would rather die that forsake his morals and ideas of right and wrong. This couldn't be closer to what I believe and what I embrace as a firm believer in courage in the face of trouble.

Piety and Socrates

The selection of reading we had confronted the issue of piety. Socrates and Euthyphro search for a definition on such a complex word. And although the time frames don't match up, I feel that this is a subject that is totally relevant to our current times and the uneasy situations that may come before us. I, along with many others are confronted with situations that we might consider impious or simply wrong. But then the thought comes into mind of what is truly wrong or impious. Its not something that can relate directly back to religion. In my opinion, its something that comes from thought and a search within yourself. Socrates stated, "where there is piety there is also justice, but where there is justice, there is not always piety." This exerpt from page 15 defines the type of action that is entailed in determining on your own what is wrong and what is right.

The White Castle finale

The final chapters of The White Castle was wrought with ambiguity and confusion, however following discussions in class, I realized that this is exactly as the author (whoever this may be) wished the book to finish. It is in my opinion that the story was intended to leave the reader in a nebulous state in which they are required to formulate an opinion on their own.

The constant reference of fog throughout the first and final chapters is meant to disguise or cloak the identities of the Hoja and the Italian. "We exchanged clothes... then he left the tent and was gone. I watched him slowly disappear in the silent fog." (pg. 145) This is the moment in which we lose the identities of both main characters leaving the reader to discover the lost identities without the aid of text.

Another supporting claim to the idea of self-realization came via the conversation with the traveler who asked the new "Hoja" of his knowledge of Italy. It was in this conversation on page 154 that Evliya announced his thoughts concerning discovery through experience. Evliya "had spent his whole life traveling, searching for stories down roads that never came to an end." (pg. 154) This sounds very similar to the predicament that readers such as ourselves encounter while reading this book. We have to search within a book that exists without a clear ending for the answer concerning the identities of these characters.

The White Castle, Part 2

The narrator's obsessive relationship with the Hoja continues to develop at this point in the novel. It is at this time, (late chapter 7- early chapter 8) that the Hoja advances in rank due to his increasingly hands on relationship with the Sultan. However as the Sultan and Hoja get closer, the narrator becomes distanced from his once close "brotherhood" with Hoja. This soon develops into a problem in which the Hoja sees the narrator as being jealous of his success, when in reality,the narrator just doesn't want to lose the comradeship that they once had. The narrator stated on page 98, "It wasn't that I wished to seize a share in the triumph... I should be by his side, I was Hoja's very self! I became separated from my real self." This marked a period in the novel when the narrator was at a low point, disconnected from his other half, his brother, and from his very self.
During this downward spiral, the concept of defeat was described. In the description discussed by the narrator it is made apparent that the narrator truly fits this mold. The first idea of defeat was standard, applying to the empire as a whole, directed to inflict a reaction in the sultan. It stated clearly that defeat may just be the loss of territory. The next concept described defeat to, "mean that people would change and alter their beliefs without noticing it." (109) This very situation was occurring to the narrator. He had lost the sense of who he was. This is apparent by the fact that he could no longer dream of returning home to the his mother and fiance. He had accepted the face that his mother was most likely dead and his fiance had begun a new life. The third and final concept was, "to accept the superiority of others and try to emulate them." (109) At this time the narrator was fully engrossed in the life of the Hoja, living through his life and completely losing track of his goal and his visions.

The White Castle

While reading The White Castle by Orhan Pamuk, I was consistently intrigued by the constantly developing and somewhat bipolar relationship between the narrator and the Hoja. It seems as if there is a constant "game" of sorts occurring between the two. One of the characters constantly gains leverage over the other by capitalizing on the other's fears or emotions. For example, the Hoja utilizes the narrator's fear of the plague to gain some sort of power, however, the narrator is quick to find a weakness in the Hoja.
There are some other interestiong aspects of The White Castle. One aspect of this book that seems to be a reoccurring theme or motif was the subject of dreaming and the scribing of their "stories". The narrator dreams on different occassions such as during the scene in which both Hoja and the narrator are standing before the mirrors. The narrator is quoted as saying, "My life was beyond my control, it was being dragged elsewhere in his hands, and I felt there was nothing for me to do but passively watch what happened to me from the outside, as if I were dreaming." This is only one reference of many, however this is characteristic of the situations that encounter the narrator.

Favorite PLace

Favorite Place...

First Post

Matt is kinda awesome