Well, actually, the book is 1984. I just saw "1983 #LessAmbitiousNovels" on Twitter a couple nights ago, and for some reason, I found it hilarious.
...But 1984, I do not find hilarious. No offense to anyone who actually enjoys 1984 and George Orwell, I just can never actually get into it. This is my 3rd or 4th time reading it for a class and I still think it's just as messed up as the time before. Sure, there's a ton of symbolism and underlying themes to think about.
I mean, Big Brother himself is a symbol of an oppression and the oppressed. At least I think he is. He is the control, and the Party (let's not forget about them), definitely controlling as well. "Big Brother is Watching You" is a poster that is hanging everywhere, letting the citizens know that all your actions are being watched, much like our government does today, only more strict. They don't have absolute freedom and the ability to think for themselves; only for what Big Brother and the Party believe. Doublethink is a form of rebellion in itself. It allows the participant to have thoughts without revealing their true thoughts.
Not to mention Winston's journal; it's a clear sign of rebellion. When he writes "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" over and over again. The journal is Winston's way of being rebellious, and it's the metaphorical beginning of a rolling snowball (does that even make sense?).
I'm not a big George Orwell fan, specifically 1984, I actually kind of enjoyed Animal Farm. But that's beside the point. I must admit though, George Orwell does a good job of keeping to underlying themes like Rebellion and Lust vs Love and so on. 1984 really is a good tale of political corruption and outright rebellion by its citizens. It shows us how a government could be so oppressive and reminds us that we are lucky to live in this democractic society.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Let's Focus on the Real Problem Here, Shall we?
Global warming? Killing animals? Feeding third world countries? World peace?
These are good issues to think about and worry about, but right now, in this moment, they aren't nearly as severe as the issue blossoming out into our society everyday.
Overpopulation.
Yeah, I know, I covered this before with Robert Kunzig's NatGeo article, but that was solutions to the problem in other countries. Now I'm talking about the issue in general. Overpopulation.
So the actual article I read for my English class was by a man named Boris Johnson. Him and I have the same views about overpopulation. That view is that overpopulation should be a number one priority. The problem is that this issue isn't even on the top ten list of "Issues that America and the Rest of the World Has to Solve". By the way, that's not a real list, I'm just being facetious. The argument for overpopulation has changed over the years. It was a budding topic early on, when people first got into demographics and all that jazz. But over the years, this topic has become almost banned. People don't want to talk about stopping the procreation of human beings because it might save their lives.
I'm Catholic, I'm all for procreation, but I would rather live healthy lives, then be corraled on this continent by the amount of people present. I mean, one day, it could be almost claustrophobic.
It seems that people, governments, and countries might have just given up on population control. It seems that way, but I'm sure there's a few people that are still willing to help keep it under the radar. In America, Johnson says that he thinks that both parties, (Right and Left wings) have reasons for disconcerting the issue of overpopulation. Pushing aside this issue allows them more time to go for things that aren't so overreaching. I guess our country has tried in recent years to do population control, but there's a difference between "forcing" and "encouraging". At least in my opinion.
The main source of support for the overpopulation issue that isn't being utilized are teenagers. Teenagers are flexible in their beliefs. They love standing up for what is right. Take the Invisible Children. On my Facebook, so many kids have shared pictures and videos and all sorts of advertisements for this organization, some of them not even fully knowing what it is but to jump on the bandwagon. If teenagers like myself, can take the time to post stuff about one organization and it catch like wildfire and spread over the entire planet, why can't overpopulation do the same thing? If teenagers participated in helping to come up with solutions for overpopulation, adults in other age groups might be more willing to help.
Just a though for the future.
These are good issues to think about and worry about, but right now, in this moment, they aren't nearly as severe as the issue blossoming out into our society everyday.
Overpopulation.
Yeah, I know, I covered this before with Robert Kunzig's NatGeo article, but that was solutions to the problem in other countries. Now I'm talking about the issue in general. Overpopulation.
So the actual article I read for my English class was by a man named Boris Johnson. Him and I have the same views about overpopulation. That view is that overpopulation should be a number one priority. The problem is that this issue isn't even on the top ten list of "Issues that America and the Rest of the World Has to Solve". By the way, that's not a real list, I'm just being facetious. The argument for overpopulation has changed over the years. It was a budding topic early on, when people first got into demographics and all that jazz. But over the years, this topic has become almost banned. People don't want to talk about stopping the procreation of human beings because it might save their lives.
I'm Catholic, I'm all for procreation, but I would rather live healthy lives, then be corraled on this continent by the amount of people present. I mean, one day, it could be almost claustrophobic.
It seems that people, governments, and countries might have just given up on population control. It seems that way, but I'm sure there's a few people that are still willing to help keep it under the radar. In America, Johnson says that he thinks that both parties, (Right and Left wings) have reasons for disconcerting the issue of overpopulation. Pushing aside this issue allows them more time to go for things that aren't so overreaching. I guess our country has tried in recent years to do population control, but there's a difference between "forcing" and "encouraging". At least in my opinion.
The main source of support for the overpopulation issue that isn't being utilized are teenagers. Teenagers are flexible in their beliefs. They love standing up for what is right. Take the Invisible Children. On my Facebook, so many kids have shared pictures and videos and all sorts of advertisements for this organization, some of them not even fully knowing what it is but to jump on the bandwagon. If teenagers like myself, can take the time to post stuff about one organization and it catch like wildfire and spread over the entire planet, why can't overpopulation do the same thing? If teenagers participated in helping to come up with solutions for overpopulation, adults in other age groups might be more willing to help.
Just a though for the future.
Overpopulation: Solutions?
Hey AGAIN! This is a really late post, I know. I guess this was supposed to be posted over Spring Break and, I completely forgot about it until Monday when I looked at our Syllabus and was all, "Oh my goodness, how could I have forgotten this?!" So I'm making up for it now. I'm so sorry. This is how inadequate I am when it comes to remembering things. Early on-set dementia?
So we've been talking about overpopulation in English. It's also the next topic for our papers. Overpopulation is a growing trend in research of today's society. With a planet that has 7 continents and limited amount of space for people to live, the issue of overpopulation comes to the minds of people everywhere and how the 6 billion people living on this planet right now could affect the future of peoples' lives to come.
So, I had to read this article in National Geographic about the overpopulation problem in different countries like India, China, here in the US, and other parts of the world. Different solutions have been proposed, but how effective are these solutions?
Was Rev. Thomas Malthus right? Is the population growing faster than the food supply?
Overpopulation has been an issue among scientists for years, the issue being whether the Earth can support the growing number of people. Thomas Malthus proposed his general law of population saying that the population of the people on the planet is growing faster than the amount of food that can be produced. This theory has been agreed upon by many people over the years and has been influencing food production methods. But food production is not the only source to help control population growth.
One method proposed by Leeuwenhoek was the theory of "coitus interruptus" or the "pull-out" method, which saw a decline in the number of births over the years became a popular method next to the use of contraceptives, which weren't available until later anyway.
Some of the solutions that Kunzig proposed I believe might be effective, and then some which wouldn't be so popular or reasonable with society. Health and education is the source of my support. I believe that if we take the time to educate the growing children of the world in schools, they will be more likely to make more informed decisions about childbirth. Like in India, girls who are educated are more likely to put school first before having kids, prolonging the number of people developed in countries. Increasing medical technology also extends the life of an average person, where having simple medicinal happens shorten a person's life. Family-planning solutions have become available to much of the world, and I believe that it should be acted on. If more people spent time planning a family, they would be more likely to have fewer kids, which could help us stabilize the population.
Some of the solutions I didn't agree with were the "wartime-like rations" proposed. Though the food supply may be shortened, I think there are other ways to produce food, even if it has to be manufactured, at least people are not going hungry. Rations just make things more complicated for the average family.
Overpopulation is a problem that we as a society need to place in our minds. This particular situation isn't going away, if anything, it's getting larger. We need to take the necessary precautions to ensure that everyone on this planet can live. As Kunzig pointed out, it's too late to decrease the amount of the middle class of 2030, but it's not too late to educate it about making our future safer.
So we've been talking about overpopulation in English. It's also the next topic for our papers. Overpopulation is a growing trend in research of today's society. With a planet that has 7 continents and limited amount of space for people to live, the issue of overpopulation comes to the minds of people everywhere and how the 6 billion people living on this planet right now could affect the future of peoples' lives to come.
So, I had to read this article in National Geographic about the overpopulation problem in different countries like India, China, here in the US, and other parts of the world. Different solutions have been proposed, but how effective are these solutions?
Was Rev. Thomas Malthus right? Is the population growing faster than the food supply?
Overpopulation has been an issue among scientists for years, the issue being whether the Earth can support the growing number of people. Thomas Malthus proposed his general law of population saying that the population of the people on the planet is growing faster than the amount of food that can be produced. This theory has been agreed upon by many people over the years and has been influencing food production methods. But food production is not the only source to help control population growth.
One method proposed by Leeuwenhoek was the theory of "coitus interruptus" or the "pull-out" method, which saw a decline in the number of births over the years became a popular method next to the use of contraceptives, which weren't available until later anyway.
Some of the solutions that Kunzig proposed I believe might be effective, and then some which wouldn't be so popular or reasonable with society. Health and education is the source of my support. I believe that if we take the time to educate the growing children of the world in schools, they will be more likely to make more informed decisions about childbirth. Like in India, girls who are educated are more likely to put school first before having kids, prolonging the number of people developed in countries. Increasing medical technology also extends the life of an average person, where having simple medicinal happens shorten a person's life. Family-planning solutions have become available to much of the world, and I believe that it should be acted on. If more people spent time planning a family, they would be more likely to have fewer kids, which could help us stabilize the population.
Some of the solutions I didn't agree with were the "wartime-like rations" proposed. Though the food supply may be shortened, I think there are other ways to produce food, even if it has to be manufactured, at least people are not going hungry. Rations just make things more complicated for the average family.
Overpopulation is a problem that we as a society need to place in our minds. This particular situation isn't going away, if anything, it's getting larger. We need to take the necessary precautions to ensure that everyone on this planet can live. As Kunzig pointed out, it's too late to decrease the amount of the middle class of 2030, but it's not too late to educate it about making our future safer.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Snape, Snape, Severus Snape
*Spoilers
There might be some spoilers if you haven't seen the Harry Potter series.
What makes a hero? What makes a villain? Is it possible that heroes can look the part of a villain but intentionally be a hero? Heroes have been defined for years through different forms of media: comic books, television, movies, books. We view heroes as an icon of freedom and give us role models for how to live our lives. Though we all can picture a hero like Spiderman or Superman, what is the true definition of a hero?
Bernstein characterizes a hero with four qualities: elevated moral stature, superior ability, pursues his goals in the face of opposition and defense of reality conforming/life-affirming values. These values are Bernstein's definition of a hero.
My definition of a hero would be Severus Snape from the Harry Potter book and movie series. Severus Snape has been characterized throughout the Harry Potter series as a villain, until his intentions were released at the end of the series. Though his portrayal as a villain is significant, the understanding of Severus Snape as a hero might be implied. If we look at Bernstein's definition of a hero, Snape meets several, if not all, of these qualities.
There might be some spoilers if you haven't seen the Harry Potter series.
What makes a hero? What makes a villain? Is it possible that heroes can look the part of a villain but intentionally be a hero? Heroes have been defined for years through different forms of media: comic books, television, movies, books. We view heroes as an icon of freedom and give us role models for how to live our lives. Though we all can picture a hero like Spiderman or Superman, what is the true definition of a hero?
Bernstein characterizes a hero with four qualities: elevated moral stature, superior ability, pursues his goals in the face of opposition and defense of reality conforming/life-affirming values. These values are Bernstein's definition of a hero.
My definition of a hero would be Severus Snape from the Harry Potter book and movie series. Severus Snape has been characterized throughout the Harry Potter series as a villain, until his intentions were released at the end of the series. Though his portrayal as a villain is significant, the understanding of Severus Snape as a hero might be implied. If we look at Bernstein's definition of a hero, Snape meets several, if not all, of these qualities.
Through the movies, Snape holds himself high and commands much respect from the students of Hogwarts. He might not have the same "elevated moral stature" that Bernsteins describes, but he does have moral stature in regards to the safety of Harry himself as seen at the end of the series. This sort of love and protection of Harry qualifies him as a hero. His superior ability comes in the form of being an excellent wizard. Since the entire series is based on wizards, his abilities make him superior to other wizards of his time. Thirdly, through the whole series, Snape has been seen as both a professor at Hogwarts and a Death Eater for the opposition, Voldemort. But his skills as a spy for Dumbledore make Snape pursue his goals, even while keeping himself undetected from the opposition of the series. Snape's ability to hold the last Bernstein quality might make some believe him to be a villain. He may not defend the people and hold life affirming values, but he definitely shows signs of wanting life to be continued further, even if that is not his original intent.
I believe Snape to be a hero in his own right. He does perform good deeds for the good of Harry and of Hogwarts itself. Through the series he proves himself to be a good person, and I think the intent is what makes him truly a hero.
Friday, February 24, 2012
A Hero...And Then Some
I'm so sorry I am getting to this late, guys.
You would not BELIEVE the issues I've had this week.
Anyway, let's talk about heroism.
What is heroism? Everyone has a different definition of the term "hero". Most people in society would define a "hero" as someone like Superman, or the Flash, or any sort of person with super abnormal abilities that betters society against an antagonist of some sort. Right?
But to Bernstein, "heroism" is something completely different.
In his essay, "The Philosophical Foundations of Heroism", Dr. Bernstein reveals 4 components that make a good hero. He believes that a hero must have moral greatness, a definition of itself. The hero must be a moral person and that the hero believes in holding high moral standards. He also believes that the hero should have some ability or prowess that makes him unique. When it comes to action, Bernstein thinks the hero should be able to act in face of opposition. And lastly, he should triumph not only in the physical, but the spiritual form as well.
I would agree with Bernsteins terms. I think a hero is not just a person with a costume and a cape, but a hero could be a pedestrian, a common person that seemed to be passing by. A hero is someone with good intentions that tries to make society better. Even if the actions affect the hero himself. While people with super abilities and awesome theme songs are generally good for a cinematic audience, why can't we consider the actual definition of a hero? A fireman for instance, fights fires to protect citizens from harm. This fireman has high moral standards, that it would be wrong to let the fire consume that poor woman's house. He has abilities that let him control the fire, the knowledge to pick up his hose. He puts out the flames, even when he can feel the heat himself. This is a true hero.
I guess it would be kind of cool to have a cape though...
You would not BELIEVE the issues I've had this week.
Anyway, let's talk about heroism.
What is heroism? Everyone has a different definition of the term "hero". Most people in society would define a "hero" as someone like Superman, or the Flash, or any sort of person with super abnormal abilities that betters society against an antagonist of some sort. Right?
But to Bernstein, "heroism" is something completely different.
In his essay, "The Philosophical Foundations of Heroism", Dr. Bernstein reveals 4 components that make a good hero. He believes that a hero must have moral greatness, a definition of itself. The hero must be a moral person and that the hero believes in holding high moral standards. He also believes that the hero should have some ability or prowess that makes him unique. When it comes to action, Bernstein thinks the hero should be able to act in face of opposition. And lastly, he should triumph not only in the physical, but the spiritual form as well.
I would agree with Bernsteins terms. I think a hero is not just a person with a costume and a cape, but a hero could be a pedestrian, a common person that seemed to be passing by. A hero is someone with good intentions that tries to make society better. Even if the actions affect the hero himself. While people with super abilities and awesome theme songs are generally good for a cinematic audience, why can't we consider the actual definition of a hero? A fireman for instance, fights fires to protect citizens from harm. This fireman has high moral standards, that it would be wrong to let the fire consume that poor woman's house. He has abilities that let him control the fire, the knowledge to pick up his hose. He puts out the flames, even when he can feel the heat himself. This is a true hero.
I guess it would be kind of cool to have a cape though...
Monday, February 13, 2012
Peek-A-Boo World
In the 1800s, Americans weren't concerned about cellular devices, computers, ipads and arbitrary, everyday problems that arise with our technology. In that time, they were developing ways to get word out faster then a carriage ride. The train, the fastest form of travel at the time, still only carried people and things at a slow steady rate that could still take days to get halfway across the country. The concern inspired the invention of the telegraph. This new form of communication enabled news - irrelevant and relevant - to be transferred across the nation at a faster rate then the train.
This began our technological revolution that would last for over 200 years, and still be occurring today.
The issue at hand is that before the invention of the telegraph, people were able to control what was in the news, or what they heard of news. The only things that were headlined in the "daily" news were important information. But, with the invention of the telegraph, much news was now considered irrelevant. They were random facts that came through and were more for entertainment. The telegraph, though now more speedy than trains, was ineffective in that it only gave short messages that the receiver would have to decypher. To further this, the invention of "photography" came about. But photography lacked any understanding and any words. It could not capture the essence of objects and the symbols for it, but it could capture a visual of a word. Combining this with the telegraph provided for the epistemology of media.
No matter how slow the process of the telegraph was back in the 1800s, technology was able to advance to what we now have today. We can get headline stories or everyday misdemeanors in the palm of our hands in like, seconds. Technology gives us a whole new world, one that opens us up to other countries and other people. Though we still lack the epistemology of media and the effectiveness of weeding out irrelevant information, technology has saved in one way or another, despite Postman's thoughts on it.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Again with the Metaphors?!
Have you ever considered the world around you? How almost everything you see can be turned into a symbol? Some symbols found in our everyday lives are almost anywhere. Take a hospital sign. This, though not a metaphorical symbol, is a symbol telling you about the location of hospital. Symbols like these give direction, get the attention of its audience, and serve to inform.
Though these kinds of symbols are important, the symbols we, as a society, need to understand are metaphorical symbols. Almost everything about our society can be turned into a metaphor. One common symbol is the American flag, symbolizing our freedom. As pointed out in Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death, even major cities can be a metaphor for our society as a whole.
I find myself agreeing with Mr. Postman about metaphors and how "conversation" is a metaphor for every technological way of communicating with one another or modes of communication. The way to communicate new products, or new ideas is to express through the best way possible. As Americans, we watch tons of commercials depicting good looking people advertising products. Would that product still sell the same if someone like myself(average-looking, non-actor) was trying to sell you the same product? Everything from our Presidents down to the lowest forms of advertising are all based on the metaphor of the person or the metaphor of communication.
Symbols have always been around us, and always will be. Our society should not take these symbols for granted, as symbols can change through time.
And to be funny,
Ha Ha Ha Ha,
Alyx
Though these kinds of symbols are important, the symbols we, as a society, need to understand are metaphorical symbols. Almost everything about our society can be turned into a metaphor. One common symbol is the American flag, symbolizing our freedom. As pointed out in Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death, even major cities can be a metaphor for our society as a whole.
I find myself agreeing with Mr. Postman about metaphors and how "conversation" is a metaphor for every technological way of communicating with one another or modes of communication. The way to communicate new products, or new ideas is to express through the best way possible. As Americans, we watch tons of commercials depicting good looking people advertising products. Would that product still sell the same if someone like myself(average-looking, non-actor) was trying to sell you the same product? Everything from our Presidents down to the lowest forms of advertising are all based on the metaphor of the person or the metaphor of communication.
Symbols have always been around us, and always will be. Our society should not take these symbols for granted, as symbols can change through time.
And to be funny,
Ha Ha Ha Ha,
Alyx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)