April Blog

This goes with number 13 from the Tell Tale Heart questions.

Many times I have heard people say something like, "Eww, you're gay." Then in turn the other person says, "No your gay, why would you say something like that..." None the less you see people project themselves regularly upon others. It's something that I am even guilty of. I know this kid, I'll just say that he's from the South. I would always ask him why he hated me. His response would always be "I don't hate you." It always suprised me that he didn't hate me because Lord knows that I hated him. I had thought that the feeling was mutual, but now that I look back at it, I suppose that I was really projecting my hate, so I only thought that he hated me in my mind. Of course he could have been lying to me and really did hate me, I'll never know.

My life experience is strikingly similar to that in the "Tell Tale Heart". Except the narrator says that he loves the old man. Was there ever anything evil with the old man's eye? Of course not, I mean it doesn't work properly so for that reason it could be considered evil, but not in a true sense. Instead of saying that there was something wrong with himself, the narrator finds something ugly, the eye, to project his ugliness on.

So why would me and the narrator do something like this? After a little thinking, the only answer that I can really think of is that I would not like to think of myself as an ugly person. So when I found out that something ugly was inside of me, hate in this case, I did everything to convince myself that I am not ugly (I've been using ugly for lack of a better word.) So, because it was not possible that I could have been the ugly one, I said that he was and therefore projected my feelings of resentment. The same thing must have happened to the narrator, he thought that there was no way that he could have been evil, so he said that the eye was.

Anyway, I feel really stupid that I could be so immature as to project my feelings on someone else. I just need to stop and realize that I can be an ugly person and that it's okay because everyone has some amount of ugliness in them.

March Monthly Connection

Does someone deserve to die if they take the life of another person? When I first looked at this question, my immediate thought was, yes, of course they do it seems fair. That person took away someone elses right to live, so they should lose their right. This is one reason why things are kind of strange here in the US. If someone were to commit murder, then admit to it, they are completely exempt from the death penalty. Is this completely fair? The only way that someone is put to death in this country is if there is some small possible chance that they are indeed innocent. Then of course there are many criminals walking the street right now because we have lawyers who find loop holes and technicalities to let them walk free.



What goes on in the US Courts today is completely different from what happened in the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus where the main character, Meursault, admits to murdering a man and is then given the death penalty. There is even a chance that Meursault may be a little crazy. He doesn't really care about the things around him and feels no emotion towards his mother's death. Had he been an American in our society today, there is no way that he would have been killed, everyone would instead say that he is mentally ill. Funny how the system in the novel should be primative compared to ours when it is justifiable.

January Monthly Connection

One of my biggest problems with society today are people who victimize themselves and complain yet refuse to do anything to make their situation better. An example are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton . They make livings by suppressing black people rather than lifting "their people". Anyways, racism is dying in the US, but people like Jackson and Sharpton are still living like it's Alabama in the 1960s. The bottom line is that neither of them would have a job if they didn't suppress African Americans (aka "their people"). While there are people like Sharpton and Jackson who complain that African Americans are not treated equally (which makes no sense because look at Obama but like I said they still think that it is Alabama in the 60s), there are people like Lorraine C. Miller who I have had the pleasure of meeting and conversing with several times. Rather than having some sort of chip on her shoulder (like Jackson and Sharpton) and complain that it is impossible to get anywhere in her life because of her race and gender, Ms. Miller doesn't even take these things into consideration and shows that she can do what any white male can do by being the Clerk of the House.

Many extreme feminists, (the ones who believe way more than the basic idea that women can do anything men can do) are much like Jackson and Sharpton. They suppress themselves rather than lift themselves complaining that they are treated so unfair. So rather than going out and working harder, they make excuses on why they can't. This relates to the novel The Awakening. If Kate Chopin suppresses her main character Edna. To me, this means that Chopin was your typical feminist, all talk and do nothing (well she did write the book, I'll give her that). The Awakening is not viewed as one woman over coming her obstacles, instead it is one woman losing to society. Whenever Edna was beaten down she should have came back stronger and worked harder.

This is what I think feminism should be about. Women should work harder and make no excuses for themselves. If things do not go a specific way, they should take the time to readjust their angle and try again. Women who do not do anything but complain about how unfair their lives are and how men have it made are not true feminists, the true feminists are the women out there earning the respect from men that they are entitled to.

December Blog

Cultural Relativism. Today society has created such a place that where there exists many things that are considered taboo. The article for this months connection brought light on how these kinds of things, like baby killing, really are acceptable, it just depends on wheather or not you are Eskimo. Of course, these taboos do not have to be as big as killing babies, it could be something less significant, like ear piercing.

When I read Things Fall Apart, several parts of it made me uncomfortable. Okonkwo treats his wives terribly, beating them (not to mention that he does have several wives.) This in our culture is unacceptable, Okonkwo would be in jail. While our society finds Okonkwo's lifestyle taboo, it is perfectly acceptable in his. Does this mean that one of us is right and the other wrong? Not exactly, Okonkwo's society is much more ignorant, so they don't really know any better. So, when the missionaries came and told the Africans that they were living the wrong way, were they correct? No, the Africans already had their own culture, it was just very different from that of the missionaries.

In American Society, I think most people are extremely ignorant to other cultures. I am always very suprised to meet people who have been no where. As a result, when Americans do go places they come off in a very arrogant manner. And most Americans seem to think that their way is the best way. Unfortunately this is not exactly true, most Americans are just too see things from a different perspective.

Monthly Connection November- Soul Mates-Such a Thing?

I think in today's society, from the time that we are little, the idea of a soul mate is thrusted upon us. When I was little, I always believed that somewhere out there I had a soulmate just waiting to find me. The concept of a soul mate is a nice one, but I do believe there are a few errors in it.

First, if soul mates do indeed exist, I do not believe that everyone has one. In the handout given out in class all of the different interpretations of soul mates either implied, or came out and said that everyone has a soul mate. If this was the case, shouldn't more than about 50% of the adult population be married? Maybe this 50% just haven't found their soul mates yet. The amount of people who live life having never been married is only around 6%. Of course for the 94% of people that do get married, how can we be so sure that they have actually found their soul mate? Some people get married because they do not want to be alone, others get married for children's sakes, and of course there are all of the gold diggers and status seekers. Just because someone is married, does not mean that they are married to their soul mate.

Secondly, I truly believe that some people are meant to be alone. Even I think this is a terrible thought, but really, how could some people possibly get married? There are people who are emotionally unable to handle marriage (or a relationship at that) and others who are mentally unable to handle one.

So how does this all relate to what we have read in class? Well, in Wuthering Heights, are Catherine and Heathcliff really soul mates? I really like the part when Catherine says that her and Heathcliff's souls are made from the same thing. This idea would most closely fit what my idea of a soul mate is. I think that Catherine and Heathcliff should have been together, but does that necessarily make them soul mates? I don't know. My idea of a soul mate doesn't exactly include obsession. If they really were soul mates, I think they would have found a real way to be together since they had already found each other.

Do soul mates exist? I don't know, but they could. I believe more that some people are meant to be together, I do not think that that would mean that they are necessarily soul mates. Perhaps someday I will find a guy that would make me less skeptical of the whole concept. The unfortunate part about it is, that if he does exist, he could live in Siberia and we would be doomed to never meet.

October Monthly Connection: Beowulf the unrelatable hero?

For my monthly connection, I will be exploring Beowulf as the hero in Beowulf.



In the passage, many people in the beginning have a bad outlook on Beowulf. He is not relatable and the reader knows nothing personal about him. He has all of these "superhuman" qualities, but that is as far as the hero goes. He has no moral dilemma, he's just a man protecting his people. Personally, I have no problem with Beowulf the man. Reading the poem, I did not expect to be able to relate to him. Beowulf is not a real person. Because he is the hero, there is no reason that the reader should have to relate to him. Beowulf is larger than life in his hero's stand point, I think this makes up for our lack of knowing about him personally, yet others say that we do indeed know a lot about Beowulf personally because of his actions in the poem.



One thing that I found interesting was Beowulf's childhood seen as an explanation for his ways as a man. Reading Beowulf, I didn't really see any connections to his childhood, but after reading the passage, I was like, "Oh yeah, I remember that," and, "That makes sense." Beowulf is constantly looking up to his father and uncle. Because of his father, Beowulf understands death better than most people perceive him to in the poem. We could even say that Beowulf is perhaps trying to live up to his father. This connection with his father makes him somewhat more relatable for the reader. From other subtle clues, the reader continues to learn about Beowulf's childhood. We learn that he once swam a monster infested sea on a dare, and that he also practiced fighting a lot. These connections make Beowulf all the more relatable.



Throughout the poem, Beowulf has these "unaccustomed dark thoughts". This clashes with the idea that Beowulf is basically cheerful. Near the end, he feels bad because he has not kept his people safe as a King. Even before this, he feels that he may be inadequate for the role of King. I do not really see how these are "dark thoughts" but the fact that Beowulf does indeed worry about them, makes him all the more human. Because of all of these facts, I do conclude that Beowulf is indeed a hero. It may be hard for some people to relate to him, but this does not take away anything from him.

Monthly Connection - September

When we discussed The Fountainhead in class, I think the we went over Ayn Rand's philosophy objectivism too quickly. In particular, about her definition of selfishness. When many people hear that someone is selfish, they think that this is a bad thing. In Rand's philosophy, it is not. To be selfish is something that we should all strive to be.

Howard Roark, Rand's ideal man, is selfish. This is seen through out the novel, specifically when he blows up Cortlandt homes. Roark wants his buildings to be created exactly as he sees them in his mind, he does not want them compromised in any way. Because the building was not exactly the way he wanted it to be, it had to be destroyed. When you look at the character of Roark, this makes complete sense. Architecture is his world, life, and religion. Any normal person would never have the one thing that they truly believe in compromised in any way. Howard's actions show that he is very strong. Sometimes it takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in. What Roark did was extremely courageous, I do not think that any architect would destroy a modified version of a building they designed. In objectivism, humans are selfish in the sense that we should stand up for what we believe in no matter what the consequences may be. We should never let others compromise what we are.

An example of selfishness is seen in The Power of One. It is, the main character, Peekay's number one goal in life to be the welterweight champion of the world. He is selfish because he will do absolutely anything to become the welterweight champion, (he could possibly cheat because he did want to learn a dirty move from Geel Piet). While he is at boarding school, he does not let the fact that his school has a terrible boxing program compromise his boxing dreams or goals. Another example from the same book is how Peekay aspires to go to Oxford and does not let money get in the way. Of course we never do find out if Peekay does indeed go there, but none the less, he does not let road blocks conquer his goals in life.

I want to live my life in a selfish way because the idea of having someone mold it for me is an idea that I cannot stand. I do not want someone to tell me that I have to live or think a certain way. Howard Roark is a character that we could aspire to be like because there is nothing that can make him change and he would not compromise anything that he truly believed in. To live the way Howard does would be incredible, nothing could bend or break you. He is selfish because he will not change, but he is doing it in an admirable way.

While I was in Washington DC, one of my roommates was the most pliable person that I have ever met. It was literally to the point of being pathetic. She would, for lack of a better phrase, seriously kiss everyone's behind. Another one of my roommates was probably the most selfish person there, if she wanted something, there was absolutely nothing that could stop her. If she said that you were wrong, there was never anything that you could say to make her change her mind. Needless to say, there were many nights when my pliable roommate would be in tears. Being in a room of four people, I found it humorous to learn that both of them considered me their favorite roommate. My favorite roommate was the selfish girl, there were several times when I could not stand her, but they were far outnumbered by the times when she was the only person that I actually could stand. It is much better to be selfish rather than selfless (as seen through two of my former roommates) . Selfish people are much more headstrong and will get further in life because they know what they want.