The Last

With finals up next week, the concluding blog post is here. I just want to pay homage to the people who viewed and responded to me during this semester: Jared and Penelope. You guys have been absolutely awesome! We destroyed that presentation, didn't we? It had to have been the best one. I appreciate the time and effort you both have put into your responses; most of them really grabbed my attention and provided new perspectives. Hopefully we find ourselves in the same class again in the future!

Is Consistency a Virtue?

For one of our discussions, we glossed over one of Montaigne's essays, and the question of "is consistency a virtue?" arose. In my opinion, I would say it is not. For example, if I give some person flowers every day at 4:30 PM and say, "I love you," does that mean I am morally righteous? No, personally, I think that is bull. Sure, not everyone would have the will to do that, but would the same effect not be achieved by doing the act just once? If it were me receiving the flowers, the luster of the occasion would lose its shine within five days maximum, and by that point, I would most likely be tired of the whole thing. From my point of view, moderation would be a more "virtuous" quality because it depends on achieving a healthy balance, not how many times you can do something in a row.

Beauty as a Burden

After finishing Don Quixote, the class immediately transitioned to Murasaki Shikibu's The Tale of Genji. At the beginning of the story, Genji's father, the emperor of Japan, falls in love with a woman (Genji's mother) who is very beautiful but of low social status. As a result of his passion for the woman, the other imperial wives and concubines despised her, and their raging jealousy and acts of hostility began affecting the woman's health.

This woman did nothing wrong; she simply was beautiful and caught the attention of a significant person. The situation she experiences in the book begs the question: "Can beauty be a burden?"

From my point of view, beauty can only be a burden if it, as a quality, does not hold the top rank in the hierarchy of social values. The text provides an example, for social status outranked beauty within the hierarchy of Japan's social structure at that time. If beauty was valued above all else in a society, then it could not be a burden; it could only be seen as a tool for acquiring power. In a society where beauty is valued above all else, people would still get jealous, but they would have less of an inclination to act on the jealousy because, no matter what, they cannot improve upon their beauty to a great extent. No matter what, people more naturally beautiful than them will always be more beautiful and nothing will change that.

Social status still outranks beauty in the hierarchy, however, and I do not know of any civilizations that contradict the trend. Even in modern-day United States, rich and powerful people, even if ugly, will have an easier time finding a partner. A woman may like a beautiful guy, but she will not stay with him if he's broke and lazy. The same applies if the genders are reversed.

Basically, I think beauty can be a burden due to the current social hierarchy of values, but in a theoretical scenario where beauty trumps all other values, beauty cannot be a burden. What do you guys think?

Consequentialism Is Preferred

While analyzing the themes of Don Quixote, our classroom stumbled upon the idea of "consequentialism", an abstract philosophy that was challenging to comprehend. Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences." In other words, it is the belief that all of your actions are either morally good or bad depending on the outcome. Good outcome means it was a good action; bad outcome means it was a bad action. The intentions do not matter. To clarify, the text did not feature consequentialism; in fact, it displayed the opposite.

Within the story of Don Quixote, the main character acts according to his ideals (or the ideals of a persona) which embody a chivalrous knight. Because of his delusions, he ventures through the countryside, trying to "help" people. Although his actions may have the best of intentions, he ends up causing problems for some. To sum it all up, he performs actions without thinking about the consequences.

To a few, this rashness is an admirable trait. They believe that living according to ones ideals and acting upon them no matter what and without thinking about the consequences is virtuous. After all, if one does not think about the consequences, then that individual cannot be selfish because he/she did not think about the possible rewards in return for helping. I, however, have a different perspective: always acting on one's ideals can be dangerous and consequentialism is preferred by society.

In my opinion, the American judicial system relies on a mix of consequentialism and intentions-based arguments, but good outcomes are usually favored and bad outcomes can lead to punishment. A great example is the Good Samaritans Law. According to definitions.uslegal.com, the law protects "someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. So, if put into the context of this blog post, this would be the situation: An idealist finds himself/herself in the situation of encountering an injured person who they would immediately rush to help. The Good Samaritans Law protects the person because it assumes they have good intentions, but it could also punish him/her if the act produces a negative outcome. On the same website, it details another aspect of the law which states that "...if a volunteer comes to the aid of an injured person who is a stranger, the person giving the aid owes the stranger a duty of being reasonably careful." In short, if the injuries are made worse, you can be prosecuted; however, each state enforces the law differently.

All in all, it seems that society acknowledges good intentions, but the outcome comes first when passing judgement. What do you guys think? Should the idealist, who tries to help but is careless in his helping, be punished or not? I think the person should be.

A Lie With Good Intentions

About two weeks ago, our classroom was discussing Don Quixote, the story of a delusional man who thinks he is a knight. During our dialogue, this question presented itself: "Is it morally acceptable to tell a lie for the sake of the greater good?"

In most cultures, lying is viewed disdainfully, so I can see why this question could cause some controversy; however, the response to the question was unanimous: yes, it is morally acceptable. I was unsure, though, if the question appealed to either a logical argument or an emotional one within the minds of my classmates. For myself, I answered "yes" because I imagined a scenario where lying would be applied logically in order to achieve the best possible outcome. For instance, if a criminal entered my home and asked me if anyone else was in the house, then I would answer "no" because that would increase the chances of survival for everyone inside the house, including myself. You could also spin that same scenario in an emotional way, saying something along the lines of "no, because my family/friends are in the house and I care for them."

Regardless of the reasoning, most people find it morally acceptable to lie if it benefits other people. It provides a good excuse for such a "despicable" act, making it appear noble instead of malicious. In the context of the question, I view lying as a tool, not a necessary evil. 

Does the "American Dream" Still Exist?

With what has to be the longest hiatus I have taken from the blogging scene, I must apologize for the lack of consistency. On the bright side, I have finally motivated myself to produce some quality content.

For this first topic, I will be backtracking to Giovanni Boccaccio's The Decameron which was discussed roughly three to four weeks ago. The question I will be attempting to answer is whether or not a grand narrative still persists in the United States.

Although the existence of many possible "grand narratives" can be debated, I will focus on the American dream, since it is the one I am most familiar with. The "American dream" is a concept that was taught to me from an early age, although the term itself did not appear until my early adolescence. As early as Kindergarten (age five), the question of "what do you want to be when you grow up?" became the central pillar of contemplation. From then on, the expectation to make something of myself never ceased. In my eyes, this expectation, which I believe to be fundamental to American society, spells out the existence of a grand narrative. However, that is my subjective truth.

The American dream is defined as "the ideal that every US citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative." To prove or disprove the reality of this term, questions must be asked to see if the prerequisites implied within it are met. Does every US citizen have an equal opportunity to achieve success? Is success and prosperity distinguishable from non-success (is it real)? Can success be achieved through hard work, determination, and initiative alone?

As far as I know, equality of opportunity has been achieved to the best it can be. The government has established rules for companies and organizations so that they cannot discriminate in the hiring process. No matter the race, religion, or sexual orientation, nothing instituted by the government is barring those who want to achieve success from doing so. Family units and the raising of children have a more profound impact on the success of an individual than the government in this point in time. It can be debated, however, that government programs such as affirmative action disrupt the balance and true "equality of opportunity", but there is a huge difference between installing an expedient policy that gives more opportunity and preventing success outright. So, in a sense, the current state of affairs does not meet the requirement of "equal opportunity".

Successful people and non-successful people are most definitely distinguishable from one another. It is the inevitability of capitalism, after all. One can look at faces such as Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg and realize that achieving immense success was possible in the past and is still possible today. The same goes for the homeless people on the streets; the road stretches in two directions. From a monetary standpoint, success is real.

The last question is a difficult one. I would like to believe that anyone could overcome any obstacle as long as they worked hard enough, but the sad reality is that some people cannot. Dealing in absolutes is tricky business. If the question simply entails the possibility of just one individual achieving success due to hard work, then that scenario is undeniably true.

In my opinion, the "American dream" still exists; nevertheless, I am aware that there may be examples that contradict the reality of its textbook definition. I am curious as to what you guys think. Does it still exist?

Fortune vs Fate: What is the Difference?

I would consider this a "Double Post - Sunday" kind of deal, but I think I already used that name, so individual titles it is!

What is the difference between fortune and fate?

While discussing this topic in the classroom, I chimed in, saying, "Fortune has a more positive connotation." Why is that exactly? I suppose its because of the undesirable--and sometimes horrifying--resolutions that are attributed to it in ancient literature. In Oedpius Rex, the main character is "fated" to marry his mother, kill his father, and finally discover the fact the he did it. In grotesque fashion, Oedipus gouges his eyes out at the end of the story. However, there are stories that have "good" fates, such as Odysseus finally coming home. Perhaps fortune has a more positive connotation because it always entails something good, while fate can be either good or bad.

Another argument that could be made is on the aspect of freedom and choice. In a world where "fate" exists, everything is predetermined. There is no changing a series of events, no matter how hard you try. It's a box you cannot escape. In comparison, a world where "fortune" exists implies that events can happen that are out of the ordinary, unexpected. If that is possible, then the capability of impacting outcomes must also be possible. One limits the scope of possibilities, whereas the other allows for an unlimited amount.

I, for one, prefer a life I have direct control over. I don't want to be a cog in a "cosmic machine".

Should Dante's Inferno be Interpreted as a Revenge Fantasy?

Into the fray of blog posts I return, withered from the recent drought. When will I learn my lesson? Eh, probably never. Anyway, a slew of topics has appeared after our very own Dante's Inferno presentation was finally showcased to the class. With a healthy bunch of Christians at our disposal, the debate was alive and everything I could have hoped for.

Time for the question: "Should Dante's Inferno be interpreted as a revenge fantasy?"

At first glance, the answer seems obvious: Of course it's a revenge fantasy, for he places so many of his ideological opponents, enemies, and critics in the depths of hell, brutally tortured. The thought of those people getting their "just due" must have been cathartic for Alighieri, especially since he was exiled from his homeland and family.

To as much of my own surprise as your own, I will attempt to formulate an argument against that notion.

I think the usage of people Alighieri despised is symbolic in some way, countering the idea of simple "revenge". In spite of him depicting their suffering as deserved and painful, he actively goes to converse with some of them. What could this mean? He may be implying that, despite the hatred you may harbor for your enemies, you should still try to understand why they are who they are. This could act as reinforcement for the theme of "returning to the straight path".

If you search for a deeper meaning in the text as I did, you will see why the limited label of "revenge fantasy" is undeserved, especially in the case of a complex poem like Inferno. There are many layers that make this text more than what this label entails.

The Flash Existed 1400 Years Ago?

For the past few days, our class has been focusing on the Qu'ran, the holy book of Islam. Its origins and how quickly it pervaded major regions of the world sparked my interest.

The question (I believe it was proposed by Mr. Sanderson) is "Why did Islam spread so quickly?"

Within a span of twenty-two years (610-632 AD), Islam became a religious powerhouse, enveloping nearly the entire Middle East. What was the cause of such incredible speed? Since there is no concrete answer, I will offer my own. I proclaim that the speed is mostly due to the loathing of the Christian world and a craving to completely separate themselves from it, even rivaling it. Imagine you are an individual among one of the scattered villages of ancient Saudi Arabia--living during the time of Muhammad. The people, there, have already labeled themselves as "other than Christian", but there is no unity, no identity to be a part of. Then, a man, a charismatic one at that, comes to your village, with many of his followers in tow, and declares that he received religious visions and directions from a god. Now that is something to get behind! No longer will you feel pressure from the enormous Christian entity near you, for you have a religion of your own. Muhammad's visits became a snowball effect of religious zeal, gathering the disunified Middle East and combining it into a singular identity. The reason people joined in troves was because of the widespread belief that they were the "others"; they wanted to be different from the Christian world.

Art vs Nature

Recently, the class has been subjected to a multitude of presentations on famous pieces of literature. One such presentation, on Ovid's Metamorphoses introduced a question that raised my eyebrows: "Does art exceed nature when referring to beauty?"

At first I thought, "Yes! After all, art can be manipulated however you want, even displaying what lacks existence in reality." However, I quickly retracted that claim. The perspective I originally pursued targeted only the visual aspect of beauty, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what everyone else focused on as well.

In my opinion, beauty is much more than the visual aspect, including what that visual makes you feel inside. Nature has something that art lacks: physical, external sensation. Beauty does not have to be restricted to what we see; instead, it can be defined by how it stimulates each and all of our senses. I find walking on the beach--feeling the salty breeze on my neck and hot sand on my feet--is more beautiful than a picture on a wall, no matter how enhanced the visual may be.

Is Suffering Necessary to Achieve Enlightenment?

Hooray! It seems I'm down for another post, so it seems I won't have to make an excuse for not completing the double.

The next topic is a question, coming directly from Mr. Sanderson: "Is suffering necessary to achieve enlightenment?"

Now, this question unleashed a pool of repressed thoughts for me, although they might not be what you would expect. I have had no one close to me die, nor have I experienced great pain. As far as I am aware, I live in what most people would consider a comfortable life. This position I have been given, grateful as I am, creates a unique kind of dread. It is fear of change, fear of death.

I look at all of these people who have been motivated by the passing of loved ones, people who have found their "purpose" because of dying wishes or advice, and it scares me. I, too, want to make my parents proud, but I find it impossible to avoid taking them for granted. Is this a result of my comfortable life? I do not know loss, so how do I know if I really love them? And if I do love them as much as I hope, will I live the way they would want me to after they pass? Or will I be gripped with so much grief that I lose passion in everything?

Personally, I am afraid to answer the question posed by Mr. Sanderson. If I say yes, then it gives me a reason to be thankful for death. I never want to feel good that my loved ones are gone. If I say no, then I fear I will never reach "enlightenment", for the comfortable life given to me produced a mind which is easily satisfied with the status quo. Where else will I find such motivation?

Too personal? Maybe. Am I too lazy to switch it out for something else? Absolutely.

Confucianism Is the Opposite of the American Way of Life

Yet again I have strayed from the righteous path of the blog posts. As a man seeking redemption, what other choice do I have other than to offer another double?

To start, I would like to preface this with some background pertaining to my classroom's current discussions. As of today, we are delving into Confucius and his philosophy, Daoism, and the differences between the two and western ideals/ideas.

My first topic is of my own thoughts, although it was inspired by our classroom dialogue. It is my assertion that Confucianism is in direct opposition to the capitalist, American way of life.

In order to narrow my argument, I have decided to focus on a single aspect of our culture, the one which I believe to be the its most defining characteristic. In my eyes, the American lifestyle is a series of fleeting experiences. We are materialistic, easily bored, and hungry for innovation. We chase all the trends: buying the next iPhone, participating in a viral challenge, and listening to the new Drake album. Every generation before us and every generation after us have and will shed the customs of their successor. For example, despite the scorn from adults, the teenagers of the 1950s continued to listen to rock and roll. In the future, I would not be surprised if the next generation invents new hip lingo, similar to our "lit" and "fam". I would even go so far as to say that the "living document" status of the Constitution of the United States is a direct result of the people's desire to change--and rapidly if wished.

This is why I believe Confucianism, a philosophy that preaches tradition and firm adherence to it, is in direct opposition to the ever-changing American lifestyle.

At first, I did not think I could make a decent argument out of this, but in retrospect, it's not all bad. What do you guys think? Is it nonsense?

Evolution of Deities Alongside Technology

It's already late at night, but I need to follow through with this whole double post thing. Otherwise, it will be hard to sleep tonight.

The second topic I am interested in is the question of how "concepts of deities evolve in correlation to the advancement of society", inspired by our Mr. Sanderson.

I do not exactly buy the "well of course because more technology calls for simpler solutions" argument (in relation to the idea of society moving from polytheism to monotheism). If that last sentence did not make sense, I will elaborate. The consensus of my classroom seemed to be that society is moving from polytheism to monotheism because of acquired knowledge (ex. there is no need for a rain god if we have already constructed the water cycle). I propose that technology has less to do with the evolution of gods and that societal values play a more crucial role. If you look at monotheistic religions around the world, most are splintered into a multitude of groups, each with different teachings and beliefs. For example, Baptism and Catholicism differ on how one is to achieve salvation but both claim to be under the Christianity banner. These divisions seem to be a result of values not technology.

Of course, the technology argument also does not explain why Hinduism (a polytheistic religion) is still so prominent today. Technology permeates throughout Hindu nations, yet the belief of multiple gods prevails. Rather, it must be the solidity of the Hindu culture that keeps these beliefs intact. Also, a good argument can be made on the change of the Old Testament to the New Testament (Christian bible). Was the change due to technology? No. It was due to the desire of making the bible more universal, a clear change of values (to be more accepting).

I hope I was able to support my argument. I tried as well as I could with this lingering need for sleep.

Is Odysseus a Hero?

Since I neglected to post last week, I feel motivated to do a double post today. After all, who else is going to pick up this slack but me? Lately, our class has been focused on the Odyssey, and the discussions that have been taking place really got my gears turning.

The first topic I want to delve into is a question posed by one of my classmates: "Is Odysseus still a 'hero', even if he could not protect any of his comrades?"

Considering the circumstances of Odysseus's journey, I cannot see how he can be seen as anything but a hero. He tried his hardest to prevent the crew's demise, despite the merciless will of the gods. Few of their deaths can be attributed to a deliberate action by Odysseus. His careless boasting to Polyphemus about his true identity spelled doom for many of his comrades, but he did this unaware of the consequences. An argument can be made on whether or not his negligence with actions such as these revoke his "hero" status, but it is undeniable that Odysseus did everything in his power to save those under him. He outsmarted Polyphemus, intimidated Circe, and warned his crew to abstain from eating the cattle of Helios. He made sure to perfectly follow the instructions of the gods, hoping that even a few of his men would survive, but his efforts were unfortunately in vain.

This unwavering determination to save his comrades is enviable by my standards. What do you guys think? I would love to hear your thoughts.

"Some People Start Wars, Some People Fight Wars"

It's the start of a new week, the perfect time to introduce a new story packed with discussion topics. Luckily for me, the Iliad is a monster of troubling questions. One question in particular struck an interest in me and is the inspiration for this blog post. Today, I would like to delve deeper into the idea of "Some people start wars, some people fight wars."

This phrase was pitched to us by our teacher in an effort to spark debate, but I feel that the discussion did not go deep enough. Obviously, this phrase is hostile towards those in power. It is one that would fit subordinate soldiers who are angry at the difference in sacrifice between themselves and their non-participating leaders. What I see here is the glorification of the subordinate, an ascription to the idea that "we're better than you because we sacrifice more." I fairly agree with this statement, but the interesting thing to take from it is the disregard of any sacrifices that the people in power may have made.

I will argue that the people who "start wars" do sacrifice quite a bit. Especially during the time period of the Greeks, starting a war had inherent risks. First of all, the people in power could end up on the losing side of the war, ending in their inevitable execution or enslavement by the opposition. War could also result in the ruin of public reputation, possibly due to repeated failures in leadership, which would ultimately lead to them being replaced or much, much worse. Due to the disregard of these sacrifices, I feel that this phrase lacks sympathy.

In conclusion, I hope those who read this blog post will take a step back and refrain from vilifying the people in power too soon. They have much to lose as well.

The First

Coming into the vein of college-level honors classes, I expected a heavy workload from the start. I must admit I was a little surprised when I realized it did not look too bad. Ditto for the teacher; he seems alright. The few tasks that we were given seemed genuinely interesting. The creation story assignment was an opportunity for creativity, so I excitedly pounced on the chance to create something unique and somewhat personal. I have not gotten to reading the epic of Gilgamesh; however, I did read the piece on existentialism which gave me a rough idea of where the story was going to go. For over five thousand years old, the story apparently has incredible insights into the understanding of human nature. I am optimistic to read the full story in the future. Of course, my optimistic view of this class will inevitably be put to the test throughout the semester. I sincerely hope that it will prevail.