The entire concept that "There is no absolute truth" is a paradoxical statement because it in itself is claiming a truth. The idea that our feelings aren't a truth but only a result of our culture is in itself a feeling from the author that could be a result from his culture, however maybe for me, in my culture it teaches that my feelings are the truth so it contradicts itself. In Cultural Relativism, claiming that "there is no universal truth" is claiming a universal truth. This is a contradiction that happens when people try to claim certain things don't exist.
For example in Waiting For Godot and the philosophy of existentialism they say that life is meaningless unless you give meaning to it and that there is no universal values save the ones we make for ourselves. Having no universal values gives a universal value to the existentialists it is just that they have no value. In this sense the existentialists cancel out their own beliefs by contradicting themselves. Plus, if everything in life was meaningless save the things given meaning then society wouldn't exist, for example if language was only meaningful because we give it meaning and it wasn't given meaning then there would be no communication, just as the article states about how societies need certain things to survive. Existentialism states things in society only have the value we put in them, however without things things there would not be a society so this whole concept can not work. If something is meaningless its absence isn't noticed, but there are things in society that without them we can not survive.
To connect with society this paradoxical truth idea shows up in Agnostic and Tolerance beliefs.
Agnostics believe that there is no God and nothing is definitely true when it comes to religion. However that right there is a truth about religion, that there is no truth. By saying they can never be sure of anything when it comes to God, they are saying there are sure of something, they are sure that they are unsure. It's a contradiction and goes against what they are saying.
The article addresses tolerance and says that we need to be tolerant of other cultures and other people who are different and also talks about the different views on homosexuality. I feel like this Cultural Relativism does show how people brought up differently will have different opinions no matter what and that should be respected, with some exceptions. However, today in America, the idea of tolerance is extremely popular and there are tons of advocates for gays, African Americans, women, the disabled, you name it. However, this whole tolerance idea also contradicts itself, because if they were truly tolerant they would respect everyone, even those who are intolerant. But, as seen in the news, no matter how "tolerant" we are we have an intolerance for the intolerant. By claiming they are tolerant but do not respect the views of people who are intolerant contradicts the idea that they are tolerant.
In my opinion this article was very intriguing. I enjoyed reading it because James Rachels showed how this theory can't be completely true, but also showed how it has some things that should be learned from it. It made me think about things in our society that seem like they give a sound answer but actually contradict themselves and don't give an answer to questions. To me it is frustrating that people claim there is no truth, there is no meaning to things, when they are claiming truth, and there must be meaning to things or else nothing would exist. For me, being tolerant should mean being tolerant even towards the intolerant, otherwise it is a false claim.
In conclusion, saying there is no truth is a truth, so no matter what you say or belief there is truth.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Friday, November 29, 2013
What is a tragedy?
This past week in English we discussed what defines a Tragedy by reading the Aristotle and the Arthur Miller definitions of tragedy as it applies to literary works.
The Google definition is "a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, esp. one concerning the downfall of the main character."
Aristotle's definition was much more specific, it needs a complete process of working out a single motive, the fall of a man who is good, believable, and consistent as well as high rank, a fall caused by an error, a release of emotions from the audience, and to explore the question of the way of God to mortals.
Arthur Miller argues that tragedy is more about the common man, and a flaw that applies to all people, and that there should be fear and terror from the examination of the unchangeable environment.
In my opinion, both are ways to go about tragedy.
In our society today I believe a tragedy is an accident or horrible event that causes the suffering of people who were not asking for it. For example the Sandy Hook shooting or 9-11 are examples of tragedy because the people who died or were hurt were not people who deserved it or where asking for it. It was a tragic accident.
In terms of literature I believe that a number of aspects could contribute to tragedy. I think that, especially since I am in the middle class, the fall of someone higher ranking than me is more comforting than the fall of the common man. The fall of the common man is more tragic.
When we see that people "above" us have the same flaws and problems as us lower class people it is reassuring that we are all equal and there really is no one above us. This has to do with insecurities and other internal issues but a lot of it is true. Just go to the grocery store and read the magazine headlines in the check out line. We love the drama of the calamity of celebrities, we feed off of it. It helps us to feel better about ourselves. How else do you think shows like Toddlers in Tiaras survive?
However, I do not believe this kind of tragedy causes the release of emotion and pity that Aristotle said was key to a tragic work. This sort of drama causes more of a contempt towards other people as well as a self-comfort in our own imperfections.
As I society today, I think this pity and release of emotion comes from the downfall of a common man who has to deal with forces outside his or her own control. The news, the stories about everyday people thrust into horrible situations unwillingly is what causes us to really get emotional. The new movie Captain Phillips about the Captain who was captured by Somalian Pirates while navigating a cargo ship, was the most emotional movie I have seen in awhile. The Captain was just a regular guy with a family, who was doing his job, when he was captured and help hostage. He didn't ask for it, he was just doing his job, and seeing a regular guy forced into an extraordinarily horrible situation was very hard to watch. I think today to see the accidental suffering of regular people is a true tragedy, it isn't the kind of tragedy that boost our self esteem, but rather a tragedy that causes a release of emotions and a true feeling of pity.
Tragedy is the unplanned suffering of the everyday man.
The Google definition is "a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, esp. one concerning the downfall of the main character."
Aristotle's definition was much more specific, it needs a complete process of working out a single motive, the fall of a man who is good, believable, and consistent as well as high rank, a fall caused by an error, a release of emotions from the audience, and to explore the question of the way of God to mortals.
Arthur Miller argues that tragedy is more about the common man, and a flaw that applies to all people, and that there should be fear and terror from the examination of the unchangeable environment.
In my opinion, both are ways to go about tragedy.
In our society today I believe a tragedy is an accident or horrible event that causes the suffering of people who were not asking for it. For example the Sandy Hook shooting or 9-11 are examples of tragedy because the people who died or were hurt were not people who deserved it or where asking for it. It was a tragic accident.
In terms of literature I believe that a number of aspects could contribute to tragedy. I think that, especially since I am in the middle class, the fall of someone higher ranking than me is more comforting than the fall of the common man. The fall of the common man is more tragic.
When we see that people "above" us have the same flaws and problems as us lower class people it is reassuring that we are all equal and there really is no one above us. This has to do with insecurities and other internal issues but a lot of it is true. Just go to the grocery store and read the magazine headlines in the check out line. We love the drama of the calamity of celebrities, we feed off of it. It helps us to feel better about ourselves. How else do you think shows like Toddlers in Tiaras survive?
However, I do not believe this kind of tragedy causes the release of emotion and pity that Aristotle said was key to a tragic work. This sort of drama causes more of a contempt towards other people as well as a self-comfort in our own imperfections.
As I society today, I think this pity and release of emotion comes from the downfall of a common man who has to deal with forces outside his or her own control. The news, the stories about everyday people thrust into horrible situations unwillingly is what causes us to really get emotional. The new movie Captain Phillips about the Captain who was captured by Somalian Pirates while navigating a cargo ship, was the most emotional movie I have seen in awhile. The Captain was just a regular guy with a family, who was doing his job, when he was captured and help hostage. He didn't ask for it, he was just doing his job, and seeing a regular guy forced into an extraordinarily horrible situation was very hard to watch. I think today to see the accidental suffering of regular people is a true tragedy, it isn't the kind of tragedy that boost our self esteem, but rather a tragedy that causes a release of emotions and a true feeling of pity.
Tragedy is the unplanned suffering of the everyday man.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Are we fated?
A theme we have been thoroughly discussing in English class this month is fate. We read Oedipus a drama where by trying to escape his fate Oedipus actually makes his fate come true. The entire play stated the message that fate is inevitable and there is nothing we as humans can do to escape it. However I am not entirely sure that this is true.
As a Christian I believe that God has given us free will and He is all knowing, however there are certain things that are predetermined or fated. For example where you were born, who your parents are, and what you look like (naturally) are all things decided for you. There are plenty of things that happen in our lives that are not a result of anything we do, like if a family member dies or you lose a job that's not something that you chose to happen out of free will, that happened because of things out of your control.
Another perspective on fate is the butterfly effect where everything is related to each other and the littlest thing can change the course of someone's life, or even the world. The movie we watched in class, Run Lola Run, showed how just because the main character didn't buy a bike off of a guy he ended up getting beat up for a bike and then at the hospital met a girl, fell in love, and got married. That seems so ridiculous to me that one little interaction can change his life like that. Yes, her refusal made him keep the bike, however he made the choice to drive down the street with the muggers, and he made the choice to ask the nurse out, and she made the choice to say yes. There are things that can influence our decisions but ultimately you decide for your self. This is the way I'm starting to see life as a constant flow of individual choices that direct our lives and cause us to interact and cross paths with one another however certain things are always out of our control. However there are certain interactions that can be life changing so how are we suppose to know which ones are and which ones are meaningless.
Some may argue that their career was fate and they were destined for one job. I believe part of that is true and part is false. I believe that God has given everyone certain talents and traits that would be best fitted for certain jobs however that doesn't necessarily mean its destiny but rather a natural ability. I am gifted with abilities in math and science so I want to be an engineer. Is that my destiny? Who knows? I could have chosen to want to be a teacher or a scientist or plenty of other things but I feel like what I want to do is engineering. Which is a choice I have made for myself not because I am "supposed" to be an engineer.
Another thing is soul mates. The idea that there is only one person who is a perfect match for you. The more I think about it the more I've come to realize there is no way to determine if this is true. Yes, there are certain people who are compatible with you but there is no way to be positive that out of all the people on the planet the one you found is the only one for you, unless you personally meet everyone in the world. Say I meet someone in college who has all the characteristics I look for in a guy and we get married, how would I know if there was another guy who went to college across the country who I would have married if I went there instead? There is no way of knowing that he was the only guy I could love however because we found each other it worked out.
Now through talks with my dad and other friends I've started to figure out where God is in all of this. What role does He play. I looked up some verses that had to do with fate. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon says that everything has a time placed by God and He has set everything for us "11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end (Ecc. 3:11)" so this alleviates worries about the future. However in Proverbs 16:9 I think it gives a perfect answer to where God is involved. It says "The heart of man plans his way, but The Lord establishes his steps." This is exactly what I was thinking. Basically we make choices, but God still intervenes and can allow things to happen.
To say there is only fate or just free will is too one sided to be true. We make decisions every day that shape our future, although a few things along the way are out of our control, God is there every step of the way.
As a Christian I believe that God has given us free will and He is all knowing, however there are certain things that are predetermined or fated. For example where you were born, who your parents are, and what you look like (naturally) are all things decided for you. There are plenty of things that happen in our lives that are not a result of anything we do, like if a family member dies or you lose a job that's not something that you chose to happen out of free will, that happened because of things out of your control.
Another perspective on fate is the butterfly effect where everything is related to each other and the littlest thing can change the course of someone's life, or even the world. The movie we watched in class, Run Lola Run, showed how just because the main character didn't buy a bike off of a guy he ended up getting beat up for a bike and then at the hospital met a girl, fell in love, and got married. That seems so ridiculous to me that one little interaction can change his life like that. Yes, her refusal made him keep the bike, however he made the choice to drive down the street with the muggers, and he made the choice to ask the nurse out, and she made the choice to say yes. There are things that can influence our decisions but ultimately you decide for your self. This is the way I'm starting to see life as a constant flow of individual choices that direct our lives and cause us to interact and cross paths with one another however certain things are always out of our control. However there are certain interactions that can be life changing so how are we suppose to know which ones are and which ones are meaningless.
Some may argue that their career was fate and they were destined for one job. I believe part of that is true and part is false. I believe that God has given everyone certain talents and traits that would be best fitted for certain jobs however that doesn't necessarily mean its destiny but rather a natural ability. I am gifted with abilities in math and science so I want to be an engineer. Is that my destiny? Who knows? I could have chosen to want to be a teacher or a scientist or plenty of other things but I feel like what I want to do is engineering. Which is a choice I have made for myself not because I am "supposed" to be an engineer.
Another thing is soul mates. The idea that there is only one person who is a perfect match for you. The more I think about it the more I've come to realize there is no way to determine if this is true. Yes, there are certain people who are compatible with you but there is no way to be positive that out of all the people on the planet the one you found is the only one for you, unless you personally meet everyone in the world. Say I meet someone in college who has all the characteristics I look for in a guy and we get married, how would I know if there was another guy who went to college across the country who I would have married if I went there instead? There is no way of knowing that he was the only guy I could love however because we found each other it worked out.
Now through talks with my dad and other friends I've started to figure out where God is in all of this. What role does He play. I looked up some verses that had to do with fate. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon says that everything has a time placed by God and He has set everything for us "11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end (Ecc. 3:11)" so this alleviates worries about the future. However in Proverbs 16:9 I think it gives a perfect answer to where God is involved. It says "The heart of man plans his way, but The Lord establishes his steps." This is exactly what I was thinking. Basically we make choices, but God still intervenes and can allow things to happen.
To say there is only fate or just free will is too one sided to be true. We make decisions every day that shape our future, although a few things along the way are out of our control, God is there every step of the way.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
The "Ideal Relationship"
One of the Socratic Seminar questions from the Fountainhead addressed the relationship between Dominique and Roark and states than Ayn Rand wrote their relationship to be the ideal relationship. Now first of all the start of their relationship is a bit unorthodox, starting with rape as Dominique calls it. But, in the reading the way their relationship begun was with her going out just so she could see him and finding a way for him to come to her house. The fact that she really wanted to be with him but then struggled and fought him when he had her shows the complexity of their relationship. From my stand point this was a very erotic scene for a book written in the 1940s so it is obvious to me that the manner of their relations was important to Rand. Ayn was showing that these two people did not have any morals, or standards of the world and they went after what they wanted the way they chose.
From there their relationship becomes a battle with a theme of conquering one another. Dominique attacks Roark in his career and then she goes to his house at night so he can physically conquer her. However, she wants to punish herself and marries Peter, and then marries Gale. She forces herself not to need him.
Roark never seems to need her, he loves her and doesn't mind having her around, but when she isn't there he isn't missing her, he is the same with or without her. As cold hearted as this may seem I find this is a healthy part of any relationship, no codependency.
Personally and through observation of teenage romance I have noticed that when people are in relationships they being to depend on and need each other. However, when this happens people become clingy, paranoid, and controlling. If someone depends on you for everything, their happiness and how to make decisions you gain so much power over their life. But they become clingy and paranoid because if you leave them their "whole life" is gone. This is not a healthy way to have a relationship. I've been in a place where a guy liked me too much and in his mind needed me, and it wasn't something that I could handle, because that is too much for another human being to take.
Ever since then I have decided that I want to be in a relationship with a guy where we don't need each other because its not a healthy way for a relationship to be. I enjoyed reading that aspect of Roark and Dominque's relationship because it is a principle that I follow in my life and that I believe others in relationships should too. They took it to the extreme however the basics of it are important in all relationships.
Another aspect of their relationship that I thought made them ideal was in their manner of speaking to one another. They were very straight forward and didn't beat around the bush, they were brutally honest. Although I have issues with this, as does everyone, I hope that I can reach a security in who I am where I can be completely honest with people. I also like how they don't have trite conversations, no small talk. Sometimes this could be annoying you do want someone who can express their feelings, however they just were very blunt and purposeful in their conversations which I find interesting to read. From viewing others I have seen that a lot of problems arise from lies and hiding things and not blatantly telling the other person the truth for the sake of their feelings or saving a reputation. Roark and Dominique don't have these worries and so their relationship works.
The most important part of any relationship is having someone similar to you with a similar purpose in life. These two demonstrated that and also led an example without neediness and full of honesty. These aspects of their relationship I commend and I hope to be able to demonstrate in my future relationships.
One of the Socratic Seminar questions from the Fountainhead addressed the relationship between Dominique and Roark and states than Ayn Rand wrote their relationship to be the ideal relationship. Now first of all the start of their relationship is a bit unorthodox, starting with rape as Dominique calls it. But, in the reading the way their relationship begun was with her going out just so she could see him and finding a way for him to come to her house. The fact that she really wanted to be with him but then struggled and fought him when he had her shows the complexity of their relationship. From my stand point this was a very erotic scene for a book written in the 1940s so it is obvious to me that the manner of their relations was important to Rand. Ayn was showing that these two people did not have any morals, or standards of the world and they went after what they wanted the way they chose.
From there their relationship becomes a battle with a theme of conquering one another. Dominique attacks Roark in his career and then she goes to his house at night so he can physically conquer her. However, she wants to punish herself and marries Peter, and then marries Gale. She forces herself not to need him.
Roark never seems to need her, he loves her and doesn't mind having her around, but when she isn't there he isn't missing her, he is the same with or without her. As cold hearted as this may seem I find this is a healthy part of any relationship, no codependency.
Personally and through observation of teenage romance I have noticed that when people are in relationships they being to depend on and need each other. However, when this happens people become clingy, paranoid, and controlling. If someone depends on you for everything, their happiness and how to make decisions you gain so much power over their life. But they become clingy and paranoid because if you leave them their "whole life" is gone. This is not a healthy way to have a relationship. I've been in a place where a guy liked me too much and in his mind needed me, and it wasn't something that I could handle, because that is too much for another human being to take.
Ever since then I have decided that I want to be in a relationship with a guy where we don't need each other because its not a healthy way for a relationship to be. I enjoyed reading that aspect of Roark and Dominque's relationship because it is a principle that I follow in my life and that I believe others in relationships should too. They took it to the extreme however the basics of it are important in all relationships.
Another aspect of their relationship that I thought made them ideal was in their manner of speaking to one another. They were very straight forward and didn't beat around the bush, they were brutally honest. Although I have issues with this, as does everyone, I hope that I can reach a security in who I am where I can be completely honest with people. I also like how they don't have trite conversations, no small talk. Sometimes this could be annoying you do want someone who can express their feelings, however they just were very blunt and purposeful in their conversations which I find interesting to read. From viewing others I have seen that a lot of problems arise from lies and hiding things and not blatantly telling the other person the truth for the sake of their feelings or saving a reputation. Roark and Dominique don't have these worries and so their relationship works.
The most important part of any relationship is having someone similar to you with a similar purpose in life. These two demonstrated that and also led an example without neediness and full of honesty. These aspects of their relationship I commend and I hope to be able to demonstrate in my future relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)