Do you feel the US is ready for an African American president or will the majority still be prejudice?
I think the US is ready for an African American president, I just don't think the Us will be ready for Barack Obama. The majority aren;'t going to have prejudice, he just needs to focus more on appealing to the African American demographic.
First of all- I don't think Barack Obama needs to worry about people being prejudice against him. If they were outright attacking him for being black, it would hurt their image. Joe Biden, anyone? 'I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy'. I'm surprised he's still in the presidential race after the public outlash against that comment. And Rush Limbaugh's comment about Michael J. Fox, earlier this year. That one hurt him badly. I don't think anyone is going to sacrifice their public opinion by speaking out against Barack's skin color- we've seen the consequences. Hello, it's not like we haven't notcied that the man is black. And some of the greatest leaders of our time have been black-MLK, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandella, OPRAH. I really don't think the race factor will hurt him anyway- it may even help him.
Barack doesn't really need to worry about appealing to white voters- he needs to focus on the black ones. As bad as it sounds, his problem isn't that he's too black, it's that he isn't balck enough. The African American demographic can't relate to him at all- and with their growing numbers, he may face a potential issue. There was even an opinion piece on this very issue on CBS Sunday Morning- the opnion being that his lack of black shouldn't be affecting people's opinions of him the way it is.
I think the Us is ready for a black president, we just aren't ready for Barack Obama. What we need right now is a strong personality to get us out of the multitude of problems we're in now- not someone who doesn;t really have strong opinions or any type of plan whatsoever. He's getting by on the fact that he's good looking, personable, and people are intruiged by his skin color. He frankl;y isn't all that strong and we don't really know what he stands for because he hasn;t made it known. He doesn't strongly advocate his opnions or what he'll do for this country at all. JFK was the same way, and as much as people liked him because he was good looking and personable, he was not all that great of a president- that's what we'll be headed for with Barack Obama.
Barack Obama needs some serious campaign reconstruction if he thinks he;ll have a chance of presidency. He needs to appeal to the African American voters and let us know his views before he can continure. America is ready for an American American, Barack just needs to pull his weight.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Feburary 27th
What are your views on the trimester?
We all know the end of this year will bring one thing- the dreaded trimester. The trimester is only going to bring trouble for students- it gives some students unfair advantages, time in between classes will only create issues, and the rigorous curriculum caused by condensing a year's worth of material into 2/3- and I just can't see if working out at Seaholm.
So you've got math first trimester and third trimester, but your friend has it second and third. In between the two trimesters, it's not like you're going to have time to look at your math to review what you need to know for the thrid. Third trimester rolls around and your friend who just had the class will probably understand the new material better because it's still fresh in their mind, and they've been practicing the things you'll need to apply and you haven't. You, are screwed. Your friend will be doing better simply because they happened to get math back to back. The trimester scheduling will create unfair advantages because some students will klnow information better than others, and the kids with unfortunate scheduling will suffer.
Ok, so maybe you do happen to get math back to back first and second trimesters- you don't have it third. 3 months without math. Then, summer. Two and a half months without math. Your schedule arrives in the mail and it turns out that you're fortunate enough to get math back to back- second and third trimester. That means you don't have it first- three months without math. Eight and a half months without math. That's the alm,ost equivalent to a whole school year- without math. you're going to be so rusty by the time you get back to school, but with haviung only 12 weeks of class, and the work being A LOT more of your grade, you aren't going to have enough time to catch up. You simply can't have those few weeks of getting your feet wet- you've got to start off with a high grade right awat. Too bad for you if you can't remember what you learned from the last year. The break inbetween classes created a sproblem if you want to get a good grade in a class.
Another concern- condensing 18 weeks into 12. True, we'll have every class everyday, but that's six weeks of material obliterated. Classes will be so tightly packed with information- kids won't be able to breathe! there will be a test just about every week in every class- the stress factor will explode. The teachers will have to give significant amounts of homework every night trying to pack in all the information in a certain amount of time- and the kids will only have one night to do it. Both teachers and students will be so stressed out because it's going to be difficult condensing 18 weeks into 12.
I don't think the trimester will work at Seaholm because it's just going to bring too much stress.
We all know the end of this year will bring one thing- the dreaded trimester. The trimester is only going to bring trouble for students- it gives some students unfair advantages, time in between classes will only create issues, and the rigorous curriculum caused by condensing a year's worth of material into 2/3- and I just can't see if working out at Seaholm.
So you've got math first trimester and third trimester, but your friend has it second and third. In between the two trimesters, it's not like you're going to have time to look at your math to review what you need to know for the thrid. Third trimester rolls around and your friend who just had the class will probably understand the new material better because it's still fresh in their mind, and they've been practicing the things you'll need to apply and you haven't. You, are screwed. Your friend will be doing better simply because they happened to get math back to back. The trimester scheduling will create unfair advantages because some students will klnow information better than others, and the kids with unfortunate scheduling will suffer.
Ok, so maybe you do happen to get math back to back first and second trimesters- you don't have it third. 3 months without math. Then, summer. Two and a half months without math. Your schedule arrives in the mail and it turns out that you're fortunate enough to get math back to back- second and third trimester. That means you don't have it first- three months without math. Eight and a half months without math. That's the alm,ost equivalent to a whole school year- without math. you're going to be so rusty by the time you get back to school, but with haviung only 12 weeks of class, and the work being A LOT more of your grade, you aren't going to have enough time to catch up. You simply can't have those few weeks of getting your feet wet- you've got to start off with a high grade right awat. Too bad for you if you can't remember what you learned from the last year. The break inbetween classes created a sproblem if you want to get a good grade in a class.
Another concern- condensing 18 weeks into 12. True, we'll have every class everyday, but that's six weeks of material obliterated. Classes will be so tightly packed with information- kids won't be able to breathe! there will be a test just about every week in every class- the stress factor will explode. The teachers will have to give significant amounts of homework every night trying to pack in all the information in a certain amount of time- and the kids will only have one night to do it. Both teachers and students will be so stressed out because it's going to be difficult condensing 18 weeks into 12.
I don't think the trimester will work at Seaholm because it's just going to bring too much stress.
Feburary 22nd
Does society's definition of success yield happiness?
The American Dream has become society's definition of happiness. As we see from Jay Gatsby, Charles Foster Kane and Andrew Carnegie, ahceiving it doesn't yeild happiness.
When I think about the American Dream, I think of one man in particular- Jay Gatsby. He had everything- the people, the house, the money, the air of excellency. He had all these things and yet all he wanted was one- Daisy. She was his driving force- he worked to get enough money so he would be sociall accepted enough to marry her, he moved across her lake so he could look at her green light. What happens when he acheives these things though? He certainly doesn't get Daisy back, and he doesn't gain any happiness by that.In fact, he happens to die after finding out he can't get her back. She was the sum total of his existance- all the things he'd gained meant nothing and therefore couldn't possibly have made him happy.
Another man driven by something he could never get back was the fictional character, CHarles Foster Kane. Everything he did was in search of his childhood sled, Rosebud, which represented the life he was robbed of having. This fueled his business, his politics, his marriages- big decisions always seemed to occur when he was searching for Rosebud. It was something he never got back though- maybe tangibly, but not emotionally, and he was miserable slaving over his search for it. He never acheived happiness.
Andrew Carnegie spent his life in misery as well. He was always striving to acheive the impossible, always working, slaving over his steel work. He thought being at the top would bring him happiness, that money would solve all his problems. But while taking this path, his public image faltered, and even though he did lots to try and improve it, nobody really liked him. His relationships with people diminished and the only person he ever really had was his mother. She was his driving force- but how would one feel if their only friend was their mother? I doubt they'd be beaming with joy. In choosing the American Dream, Andrew Carnegie gave up happiness.
Society's definition of success calls for too much from those trying to acheive it. The American Dream is just that- a dream. It's an illusion that money and productivity will yeild happiness, and as we've just discovered, that just isn't true.
The American Dream has become society's definition of happiness. As we see from Jay Gatsby, Charles Foster Kane and Andrew Carnegie, ahceiving it doesn't yeild happiness.
When I think about the American Dream, I think of one man in particular- Jay Gatsby. He had everything- the people, the house, the money, the air of excellency. He had all these things and yet all he wanted was one- Daisy. She was his driving force- he worked to get enough money so he would be sociall accepted enough to marry her, he moved across her lake so he could look at her green light. What happens when he acheives these things though? He certainly doesn't get Daisy back, and he doesn't gain any happiness by that.In fact, he happens to die after finding out he can't get her back. She was the sum total of his existance- all the things he'd gained meant nothing and therefore couldn't possibly have made him happy.
Another man driven by something he could never get back was the fictional character, CHarles Foster Kane. Everything he did was in search of his childhood sled, Rosebud, which represented the life he was robbed of having. This fueled his business, his politics, his marriages- big decisions always seemed to occur when he was searching for Rosebud. It was something he never got back though- maybe tangibly, but not emotionally, and he was miserable slaving over his search for it. He never acheived happiness.
Andrew Carnegie spent his life in misery as well. He was always striving to acheive the impossible, always working, slaving over his steel work. He thought being at the top would bring him happiness, that money would solve all his problems. But while taking this path, his public image faltered, and even though he did lots to try and improve it, nobody really liked him. His relationships with people diminished and the only person he ever really had was his mother. She was his driving force- but how would one feel if their only friend was their mother? I doubt they'd be beaming with joy. In choosing the American Dream, Andrew Carnegie gave up happiness.
Society's definition of success calls for too much from those trying to acheive it. The American Dream is just that- a dream. It's an illusion that money and productivity will yeild happiness, and as we've just discovered, that just isn't true.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Feburary 21st
What do you think is a central theme in the Kite Runner? Is this a universal theme or specific to Afghanistan or Middle Eastern culture? Use examples from your life or other cultures we've studied.
I think a central theme of the Kite Runner is the virtuous suffering for the sake of others, like Jesus. We've seen quite alot of Jesus figures this year- Hassan, Simon from Lord of the Flies, and the suffering savior worshipped in Russian Orthodox Christianity- which means that it's a universal theme, not specific to the Middle East.
Being raped wasn't the only time Hassan suffered for Amir. He was a servant! He'd wake up at the crack of dawn every morning to work- cleaning, cooking, and doing manual labor- so Amir wouldn't be inconvenienced with doing it himself. However, his ultimate sacrifice was the incident that took place in the alley after the kite fighting tournament. After that, Hassan was broken. His life was ruined, all so he could get Amir's kite back. He was alot like the timid Jesus, accepting fate without resistance- the Jesus worshipped in Russian Orthodox Christianity.
Suffering is so prominent in Russian culture, so naturally it would be praised. Boris and Gleb became national and religious heroes after accepting their death without resistance, which we read in To Serve God and Uplift Humanity. In the Russian short story 'The Servant', a muzhik (servant) is stranded on an island with two government officials who force him to work for them under horrific conditions. He ultimately saves their lives by getting them off the island, even though he remains stranded. For this he was praised. Russians pride themselves in surpressing self interest for the good of others. Perhaps it's because they want to see themselves as acting like the suffering Christ they worship.
Another Christ like figure who was sacrificed was Simon, from Lord of the Flies. He gave the ultimate possesion, his life, trying to inform the rest of the boys what they'd feared and fought over was the most harmless of things. Simon is the most obvious Jesus figure we've studied thus far, and there are many parallels between he and Hassan. From their love of nature, to their timid nature, to the sacrifices they made, they are like brothers, both of whom posses qualities that mirror those of Jesus.
Suffering is a central theme in not only the Kite Runner, but many cultures we've studied this year. I think part of the reason why it's so universal is because it mirrors Christianity- the world's largeat religion.
I think a central theme of the Kite Runner is the virtuous suffering for the sake of others, like Jesus. We've seen quite alot of Jesus figures this year- Hassan, Simon from Lord of the Flies, and the suffering savior worshipped in Russian Orthodox Christianity- which means that it's a universal theme, not specific to the Middle East.
Being raped wasn't the only time Hassan suffered for Amir. He was a servant! He'd wake up at the crack of dawn every morning to work- cleaning, cooking, and doing manual labor- so Amir wouldn't be inconvenienced with doing it himself. However, his ultimate sacrifice was the incident that took place in the alley after the kite fighting tournament. After that, Hassan was broken. His life was ruined, all so he could get Amir's kite back. He was alot like the timid Jesus, accepting fate without resistance- the Jesus worshipped in Russian Orthodox Christianity.
Suffering is so prominent in Russian culture, so naturally it would be praised. Boris and Gleb became national and religious heroes after accepting their death without resistance, which we read in To Serve God and Uplift Humanity. In the Russian short story 'The Servant', a muzhik (servant) is stranded on an island with two government officials who force him to work for them under horrific conditions. He ultimately saves their lives by getting them off the island, even though he remains stranded. For this he was praised. Russians pride themselves in surpressing self interest for the good of others. Perhaps it's because they want to see themselves as acting like the suffering Christ they worship.
Another Christ like figure who was sacrificed was Simon, from Lord of the Flies. He gave the ultimate possesion, his life, trying to inform the rest of the boys what they'd feared and fought over was the most harmless of things. Simon is the most obvious Jesus figure we've studied thus far, and there are many parallels between he and Hassan. From their love of nature, to their timid nature, to the sacrifices they made, they are like brothers, both of whom posses qualities that mirror those of Jesus.
Suffering is a central theme in not only the Kite Runner, but many cultures we've studied this year. I think part of the reason why it's so universal is because it mirrors Christianity- the world's largeat religion.
Feburary 20th
Why does Raskolnikov keep giving his money away?
In a city like St. Petersburg, where many people expirience the depths of poverty, Raskolnikov is bound to see people in far worse situations than he. As a result of his pity, Raskolnikov keeps giving his money away.
Rakolnikov feels bad for Marmeladov and the way his family must depend on their daughter, Sonia, who earns money as a prostitute to support at least four other people. This he learned after having heard Marmeladov's drunken ramblings in a bar. He brings the man back home, only to see the shithole in which they live. He realizes the situation they're in and gives them all the money he had left in his pockets thinking, 'without my money, they might not have a thing tomorrow.' He feels bad for Sonia, for Marmeladov, and for Katherine Ivanova, his wife- all of whom had gotten used to their destituted lives.
Another person Raskolnikov feels bad for is the young girl he sees in the park who is a complete mess. She was drunk and vulnerable, and he assumed she'd been taken advantage of. He felt so bad for her, he gave a policeman money to take care of her. He has a moment of compassion here, which tells us that our protagonist is might have some good in him. He's overcome with anger and pity, which makes him give away twenty kopecks for the safety of someone he has no ties to at all.
Marmeladov's family seems to be on the receiving end of Raskolnikov's generosity quite often. When he's killed, Raskolnikov gives Sonia money for her father's funeral. He knows their story, and knows that a funeral is the last thing they can afford. Raskolnikov often finds himself feeling bad for people who are in worse conditions than he, and feels compelled to do something about it. THis definatly says something contradictory about his character.
Raskolnikov is an enigma. He murders and pays for funerals. He feels contempt and compassion, and this sense of inner conflict makes him give away his money- it shows us he really isn't that bad.
In a city like St. Petersburg, where many people expirience the depths of poverty, Raskolnikov is bound to see people in far worse situations than he. As a result of his pity, Raskolnikov keeps giving his money away.
Rakolnikov feels bad for Marmeladov and the way his family must depend on their daughter, Sonia, who earns money as a prostitute to support at least four other people. This he learned after having heard Marmeladov's drunken ramblings in a bar. He brings the man back home, only to see the shithole in which they live. He realizes the situation they're in and gives them all the money he had left in his pockets thinking, 'without my money, they might not have a thing tomorrow.' He feels bad for Sonia, for Marmeladov, and for Katherine Ivanova, his wife- all of whom had gotten used to their destituted lives.
Another person Raskolnikov feels bad for is the young girl he sees in the park who is a complete mess. She was drunk and vulnerable, and he assumed she'd been taken advantage of. He felt so bad for her, he gave a policeman money to take care of her. He has a moment of compassion here, which tells us that our protagonist is might have some good in him. He's overcome with anger and pity, which makes him give away twenty kopecks for the safety of someone he has no ties to at all.
Marmeladov's family seems to be on the receiving end of Raskolnikov's generosity quite often. When he's killed, Raskolnikov gives Sonia money for her father's funeral. He knows their story, and knows that a funeral is the last thing they can afford. Raskolnikov often finds himself feeling bad for people who are in worse conditions than he, and feels compelled to do something about it. THis definatly says something contradictory about his character.
Raskolnikov is an enigma. He murders and pays for funerals. He feels contempt and compassion, and this sense of inner conflict makes him give away his money- it shows us he really isn't that bad.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Feburary 19th
10- question
So I'm not really creative enough to search the Internet and find a question, so I went back to the blog page. I actually decided to answer one of my own questions, even though it has to do with the last unit we learned, the Middle East.
Do you feel that women in the Middle East have a strong role?
-must use the language- I feel..
20- evidence
Ok so, I'm on vacation and don't have my sources with me. But I definatly remember sources from the latter half of the unit that I thought really displayed the role women in the Middle East played. In my eyes, it was a very strong one. It wasn't really something that was on the outer layer of Mazon's glob, blob, whatever, because that would have shown the idea that women were being oppressed, etc. It's more in the innter later, the one that you can't see, that shows how they dominate.
Thesis: At first glance, it would seem that women in the MIddle East are oppressed, but when looking deeper, into the inner layer of Mazon's glob, it's eveident that they have a stong role.
30- writing
At first glance, it would seem as if the women in the Middle East were oppressed, but when looking deeper, into the inner layer of Mazon's glob, it's evident they have a strong role. We can see this through the importance of the little girl's shoes in Children of Heaven, the affects of the presence of the character Hamida in Midaq Alley, and how women affet the religion of Islam itself.
In the highly allegorical and symbolic Iranian film, Children of Heaven, the filmmaker uses the importance of the little girl's shoes as a statement about the role of women in the Middle Eastern culture. The little girl demands a new pair of shoes because her brother lost hers, so he begins on a journey to fulfill her wishes. To the outsider, it may seem as if the things he did were for himself, for hisown personal gain, like winning the race, helping his father with work, being late for school ,etc. In reality, these actions were a result of attempting to get his sister shoes. Although the girl herself isn't going out and doing these things, sge us tge reason they're being done. Behind the scenes, she wears the pants in the relationship and she determines what's done. She plays a very strong role.
Another woman who determined the fate of alot of men's lives was the promiscuous Hamida, from Midaq Alley. True, her effects weren't great but her presence created some all the same. When news got out that she was to marry another man, Salim Alwan, the businessman who lusted after her, had a heart attack. When Abbas tried to save her from a life of prostitution, he was beaten to death by a mob of men. Although she didn't positively affect anyone, she changed the lives of at least two people, as well as the whole alley, forever.
Another very strong woman that determined alot for the Middle Eastern culture was the wife of the Prophet Mohammed. When he first received the angel Gabriel, the first person Mohammed told was his wife. She encouraged him to spread word of these revelations and was Islam's first follower. Mohammed wouldn't have married her if not for her business, which gave both of them legitimacy, and allowed him to gain respect among the community. Islam dominates the MIddle Eastern culture and if it weren't for this woman, it wouldn't have existed. IT is clear that women play a strong role in Middle Eastern culture.
Through looking at the little Iranian girl in Children of Heaven, Hamida, and Mohammed's wife, it's evident that women in the MIddle East have a role that is strong. Quiet maybe, but strong all the same.
So I'm not really creative enough to search the Internet and find a question, so I went back to the blog page. I actually decided to answer one of my own questions, even though it has to do with the last unit we learned, the Middle East.
Do you feel that women in the Middle East have a strong role?
-must use the language- I feel..
20- evidence
Ok so, I'm on vacation and don't have my sources with me. But I definatly remember sources from the latter half of the unit that I thought really displayed the role women in the Middle East played. In my eyes, it was a very strong one. It wasn't really something that was on the outer layer of Mazon's glob, blob, whatever, because that would have shown the idea that women were being oppressed, etc. It's more in the innter later, the one that you can't see, that shows how they dominate.
Thesis: At first glance, it would seem that women in the MIddle East are oppressed, but when looking deeper, into the inner layer of Mazon's glob, it's eveident that they have a stong role.
30- writing
At first glance, it would seem as if the women in the Middle East were oppressed, but when looking deeper, into the inner layer of Mazon's glob, it's evident they have a strong role. We can see this through the importance of the little girl's shoes in Children of Heaven, the affects of the presence of the character Hamida in Midaq Alley, and how women affet the religion of Islam itself.
In the highly allegorical and symbolic Iranian film, Children of Heaven, the filmmaker uses the importance of the little girl's shoes as a statement about the role of women in the Middle Eastern culture. The little girl demands a new pair of shoes because her brother lost hers, so he begins on a journey to fulfill her wishes. To the outsider, it may seem as if the things he did were for himself, for hisown personal gain, like winning the race, helping his father with work, being late for school ,etc. In reality, these actions were a result of attempting to get his sister shoes. Although the girl herself isn't going out and doing these things, sge us tge reason they're being done. Behind the scenes, she wears the pants in the relationship and she determines what's done. She plays a very strong role.
Another woman who determined the fate of alot of men's lives was the promiscuous Hamida, from Midaq Alley. True, her effects weren't great but her presence created some all the same. When news got out that she was to marry another man, Salim Alwan, the businessman who lusted after her, had a heart attack. When Abbas tried to save her from a life of prostitution, he was beaten to death by a mob of men. Although she didn't positively affect anyone, she changed the lives of at least two people, as well as the whole alley, forever.
Another very strong woman that determined alot for the Middle Eastern culture was the wife of the Prophet Mohammed. When he first received the angel Gabriel, the first person Mohammed told was his wife. She encouraged him to spread word of these revelations and was Islam's first follower. Mohammed wouldn't have married her if not for her business, which gave both of them legitimacy, and allowed him to gain respect among the community. Islam dominates the MIddle Eastern culture and if it weren't for this woman, it wouldn't have existed. IT is clear that women play a strong role in Middle Eastern culture.
Through looking at the little Iranian girl in Children of Heaven, Hamida, and Mohammed's wife, it's evident that women in the MIddle East have a role that is strong. Quiet maybe, but strong all the same.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Tolstoy and Dostoevsky
10- searching for a question
I was looking for something that would go along with what we learned about Dostoevsky yesterday in the film that followed The Crocodile. I remembered that there was a question on the writing group blog involving Dostoevsky and what Tolstoy's opinion of him might be. Although I didn't know much about Tolstoy, from his 'How Much Land Does a Man Need?', I figured he'd be big on community sense. Perhaps he'd supposed the Socialitic ideas arising in Russia at that time that Dostoevsky so disliked. Who knows. Evidence shall point me in the right direction!
What would Tolstoy think of Dostoevsky?
The question asks about Tolstoy's opinion.
20- Evidence
I had to do a ton of research on Leo Tolstoy to find what what he believed in , what his views were, etc. Then I had to see how they related to those of Dostoevsky. One thing I noticed was that some of their views had similar cores, that they were actually alot alike. Two big ones seemed to be how they felt about order and self-reliance. I also found some on their relationship.
Thesis: Although Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy believed in different things, they reflected the same core values, which led to Tolstoy to think highly of Dostoevsky.
paragraph 1- Tolstoy's Christian anarchism, Dostoevsky's opinion on order
paragraph 2- both possessing an air of existentialism
paragraph 3- mututal respect
30- writing
Although Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy believed in different things, they reflected the same core values, which led Tolstoy to think highly of Dostoevsky. We'll look at two similarities in the beliefs, opposition to order although religious, and self reliance, as well as their relationship with one another.
A common theme between the to authors is their rejection of order, even though they themselves were relgious people. Leo Tolstoy's political views have been stated as those that support Christian anarchism. He was against the Russian governemtnt of the time, and wanted a state in which there were no laws. Maybe not no laws, but only laws that upheld Christian values. Dostoevsky on the other hand only became religious when he got back from Siberia after being emprisoned for writing radical things against the government. He hated order vehemently, claiming it restricted the individual, and even made fun of those that supported it (as we saw in The Crocodile). Both writer were religious men who called for smaller government and less oppression.
Along with so adamently denouncing order, Dostoevsky was also big on rationality, and other elements that would become what we now today as existentialism. It is claimed that his 'Noes from Underground' was the beginning of that school of thought. Such beliefs include the individual having sole responsibility in the meaning of their life, and the importance of freedom of choice and free will (which would be restricted by order). Leo Tolstoy's teachings of Christian anarchism are rationalized ones, and rationality is a huge component of existentialism. Tolstoy also had been caught saying that man can't exist without the idea of free will. These self reliant ideas linked Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, which may have lead to the mutual respect of the two authors.
True, they may never have met face-to-face, but it is known that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky deeply respected one another. They often critisized and praised each other's works. Dostoevsky once said that he thought Tolstoy to be one of the finest of all living writers. There was even a meeting set up between the two men, but there was confusion as to where it would be held, and they never got together. Tolstoy may have denounced Crime and Punishment, but he still had very high opinions of Fyodor Dostoevsky and it has been reported that he wept when the news of his death was broken to him.
There are many elements of Fyodor Dostoevsky's writings and views that are similar to those of Leo Tolstoy's. Both men respected one another, and Tolstoy had very high opinions of Dostoevsky.
I was looking for something that would go along with what we learned about Dostoevsky yesterday in the film that followed The Crocodile. I remembered that there was a question on the writing group blog involving Dostoevsky and what Tolstoy's opinion of him might be. Although I didn't know much about Tolstoy, from his 'How Much Land Does a Man Need?', I figured he'd be big on community sense. Perhaps he'd supposed the Socialitic ideas arising in Russia at that time that Dostoevsky so disliked. Who knows. Evidence shall point me in the right direction!
What would Tolstoy think of Dostoevsky?
The question asks about Tolstoy's opinion.
20- Evidence
I had to do a ton of research on Leo Tolstoy to find what what he believed in , what his views were, etc. Then I had to see how they related to those of Dostoevsky. One thing I noticed was that some of their views had similar cores, that they were actually alot alike. Two big ones seemed to be how they felt about order and self-reliance. I also found some on their relationship.
Thesis: Although Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy believed in different things, they reflected the same core values, which led to Tolstoy to think highly of Dostoevsky.
paragraph 1- Tolstoy's Christian anarchism, Dostoevsky's opinion on order
paragraph 2- both possessing an air of existentialism
paragraph 3- mututal respect
30- writing
Although Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy believed in different things, they reflected the same core values, which led Tolstoy to think highly of Dostoevsky. We'll look at two similarities in the beliefs, opposition to order although religious, and self reliance, as well as their relationship with one another.
A common theme between the to authors is their rejection of order, even though they themselves were relgious people. Leo Tolstoy's political views have been stated as those that support Christian anarchism. He was against the Russian governemtnt of the time, and wanted a state in which there were no laws. Maybe not no laws, but only laws that upheld Christian values. Dostoevsky on the other hand only became religious when he got back from Siberia after being emprisoned for writing radical things against the government. He hated order vehemently, claiming it restricted the individual, and even made fun of those that supported it (as we saw in The Crocodile). Both writer were religious men who called for smaller government and less oppression.
Along with so adamently denouncing order, Dostoevsky was also big on rationality, and other elements that would become what we now today as existentialism. It is claimed that his 'Noes from Underground' was the beginning of that school of thought. Such beliefs include the individual having sole responsibility in the meaning of their life, and the importance of freedom of choice and free will (which would be restricted by order). Leo Tolstoy's teachings of Christian anarchism are rationalized ones, and rationality is a huge component of existentialism. Tolstoy also had been caught saying that man can't exist without the idea of free will. These self reliant ideas linked Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, which may have lead to the mutual respect of the two authors.
True, they may never have met face-to-face, but it is known that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky deeply respected one another. They often critisized and praised each other's works. Dostoevsky once said that he thought Tolstoy to be one of the finest of all living writers. There was even a meeting set up between the two men, but there was confusion as to where it would be held, and they never got together. Tolstoy may have denounced Crime and Punishment, but he still had very high opinions of Fyodor Dostoevsky and it has been reported that he wept when the news of his death was broken to him.
There are many elements of Fyodor Dostoevsky's writings and views that are similar to those of Leo Tolstoy's. Both men respected one another, and Tolstoy had very high opinions of Dostoevsky.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Excuse my ramblings here.
So I'm not really working towards anything specific here, but just a bit of dabbling around as a way to analyze things we're currently learning.
To me, suffering isn't as big of a theme Russian culture, literature, art, etc. as much as brotherhood. In all three of our sources thus far, brotherhood under Mother Russia has been a huge theme. And perhaps it's this sense of brotherhood that brings about suffering, for one must give up a few things to gain in a social contract. It just seems that the Russians give up so much more than say, us Americans, because they value the community so much because of this clan sense dating back to the Slavs. All in all, being Russian is a big deal, and it's a big no-no when one goes against their fellow Russians.
In How Much Land Does a Man Need, the farmer's greed begins to spark only as he feels it's necessary to aquire more land than that which was to be divided up by all the peasants. The farmer goes against his fellow Russian brothers to gain things for himself. He keeps trying to work his way up the scale, gaining more and more land, until he must pay the ultimate price for his actions, his life. This story is about suppressing the individual because that's what one must do to be virtuous, when working for the good of the fellow Russians.
True, all war films have a theme of virtue, a theme of patriotism, and Alexander Nevsky is certainly no exception. It pushed about every button that would make one want to fight for Mother Russia. I mean, it's all about how the citizens of Novgorod were going to fight what was left of Russia, Nevsky leading them. I think the scene that best describes Russia's brotherhood mentality is at the very end when Nevsky allows the citizens to decide the fate of the people who were to be dealt with for what they'd done against Russia. It was not the Germans, the enemies of Russia who fared the worst fate, but the traitor. To them, it was worse to be Russian and go against Russia, their homeland and Mother, as opposed to fighting against them and not knowing any better.
Russian Orthodox Christianity helped this sense of brotherhood as well, because it gave them a sense of community. "The whole Russian people once thought of themselves idealistically as a single, immense family, with the tsar as a father. Russian peasants, down through the centuries, addressed everyone, even strangers in terms of kinship- father, mother, brother, sister. The individual life was only a fleeting moment in the life of this great clan." This quote basically defines how Russians see themselves, from their individualistic lives, to their lives in the community as a whole.
As Russian, you must suffer, but to the Russians, suffering for the community is every worth every moment.
To me, suffering isn't as big of a theme Russian culture, literature, art, etc. as much as brotherhood. In all three of our sources thus far, brotherhood under Mother Russia has been a huge theme. And perhaps it's this sense of brotherhood that brings about suffering, for one must give up a few things to gain in a social contract. It just seems that the Russians give up so much more than say, us Americans, because they value the community so much because of this clan sense dating back to the Slavs. All in all, being Russian is a big deal, and it's a big no-no when one goes against their fellow Russians.
In How Much Land Does a Man Need, the farmer's greed begins to spark only as he feels it's necessary to aquire more land than that which was to be divided up by all the peasants. The farmer goes against his fellow Russian brothers to gain things for himself. He keeps trying to work his way up the scale, gaining more and more land, until he must pay the ultimate price for his actions, his life. This story is about suppressing the individual because that's what one must do to be virtuous, when working for the good of the fellow Russians.
True, all war films have a theme of virtue, a theme of patriotism, and Alexander Nevsky is certainly no exception. It pushed about every button that would make one want to fight for Mother Russia. I mean, it's all about how the citizens of Novgorod were going to fight what was left of Russia, Nevsky leading them. I think the scene that best describes Russia's brotherhood mentality is at the very end when Nevsky allows the citizens to decide the fate of the people who were to be dealt with for what they'd done against Russia. It was not the Germans, the enemies of Russia who fared the worst fate, but the traitor. To them, it was worse to be Russian and go against Russia, their homeland and Mother, as opposed to fighting against them and not knowing any better.
Russian Orthodox Christianity helped this sense of brotherhood as well, because it gave them a sense of community. "The whole Russian people once thought of themselves idealistically as a single, immense family, with the tsar as a father. Russian peasants, down through the centuries, addressed everyone, even strangers in terms of kinship- father, mother, brother, sister. The individual life was only a fleeting moment in the life of this great clan." This quote basically defines how Russians see themselves, from their individualistic lives, to their lives in the community as a whole.
As Russian, you must suffer, but to the Russians, suffering for the community is every worth every moment.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
4. If you were running for president in the 2008 election what would be the main issue you would want to campaign for?
4. If you were running for president in the 2008 election what would be the main issue you would want to campaign for?
For this question, I worked on example elaboration.
Recently, we've been hearing mention of those who are planning on running in the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, all of whom are sure to have a specific issue they plan on addressing. With the escalation of troops being deployed to Iraq, and the public's increasing disapproval of the war overseas, it'll most likely be getting our boys home. However, there are more pressing concerns that our country faces, concerns that both Al Gore and George Bush would say are things that are important to our country, that would be breaking our dependence of oil.
First and foremost is the fact that the US is, as good old Georgie put it, 'addicted to oil'. We spend $13 million an hour fueling our cars, SUVs, and minivans with foreign oil. We want our oil, and we want it cheap. As we saw in Syriana, we'll go to almost anything to get our oil cheaper, even if it involves depriving a country of democracy and killing people. True, that's a fictional film, but if you look at which countries we 'befriend' in the Middle East, you can tell we only like those who can protect our oil interests. Look our involvement with Iran prior to the Revolution, look at our long time relations with Saudi Arabia. Leading oil producers and America's best buds. It's not an unknown fact that we went into Iraq for the same reason. IRAQ HAS THE WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES! We needed to bring the government down in order bring disorder to the country so that oil would be cheaper for us. This is pretty much the same scenario as Syriana, where disorder meant cheaper oil prices for the United States, who was willing to murder Prince Nasir, who wished to bring order and democracy to his country. I thought we lived in a virtuous country who wanted to spread democracy and order in the world so that countries would reap benefits that we take for granted everyday. Apparently not. And the thing is, the countries of the Middle East realize this hypocracy, which may lead to long list of reasons why they hate us. Breaking our addiction, and realizing that some things are more important than cheap oil prices may help our image within the area. That may lead to a decreased chance of terrorism against us in the future.
Al Gore has become increasingly popular since the debut of his movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Unfortunately, global warming isn't as hot of a topic as the war in Iraq, but it definately should be. The United States is responsible for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, highest of any country in the world, and more than China, India and Japan combined. The reason why America is such an airclogger is because of our oil addiction. If we didn't need to fuel up our cars three times a week to emit those gases, we could become a leader in cleaning up our world. We, the world's sole super power, could start a great movement that would benefit not just us, but our children's children, and their children. And if we focused on alternative sources of energy, we could have more job opportunities for our fellow Americans, and our economy would boom. We'd be in an even higher place, doing good for our planet and ourselves, we could replenish our diminishing middle class, and our democracy would flourish.
So if I were running for President in 2008, I'd focus on a plan for us to break our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic. There's no down side to doing it, it'd improve our planet, our relationship in the Middle East, and our stance all over the world. It's just something that needs to be done because it's something that so adamently dominates our politics.
For this question, I worked on example elaboration.
Recently, we've been hearing mention of those who are planning on running in the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, all of whom are sure to have a specific issue they plan on addressing. With the escalation of troops being deployed to Iraq, and the public's increasing disapproval of the war overseas, it'll most likely be getting our boys home. However, there are more pressing concerns that our country faces, concerns that both Al Gore and George Bush would say are things that are important to our country, that would be breaking our dependence of oil.
First and foremost is the fact that the US is, as good old Georgie put it, 'addicted to oil'. We spend $13 million an hour fueling our cars, SUVs, and minivans with foreign oil. We want our oil, and we want it cheap. As we saw in Syriana, we'll go to almost anything to get our oil cheaper, even if it involves depriving a country of democracy and killing people. True, that's a fictional film, but if you look at which countries we 'befriend' in the Middle East, you can tell we only like those who can protect our oil interests. Look our involvement with Iran prior to the Revolution, look at our long time relations with Saudi Arabia. Leading oil producers and America's best buds. It's not an unknown fact that we went into Iraq for the same reason. IRAQ HAS THE WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES! We needed to bring the government down in order bring disorder to the country so that oil would be cheaper for us. This is pretty much the same scenario as Syriana, where disorder meant cheaper oil prices for the United States, who was willing to murder Prince Nasir, who wished to bring order and democracy to his country. I thought we lived in a virtuous country who wanted to spread democracy and order in the world so that countries would reap benefits that we take for granted everyday. Apparently not. And the thing is, the countries of the Middle East realize this hypocracy, which may lead to long list of reasons why they hate us. Breaking our addiction, and realizing that some things are more important than cheap oil prices may help our image within the area. That may lead to a decreased chance of terrorism against us in the future.
Al Gore has become increasingly popular since the debut of his movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Unfortunately, global warming isn't as hot of a topic as the war in Iraq, but it definately should be. The United States is responsible for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, highest of any country in the world, and more than China, India and Japan combined. The reason why America is such an airclogger is because of our oil addiction. If we didn't need to fuel up our cars three times a week to emit those gases, we could become a leader in cleaning up our world. We, the world's sole super power, could start a great movement that would benefit not just us, but our children's children, and their children. And if we focused on alternative sources of energy, we could have more job opportunities for our fellow Americans, and our economy would boom. We'd be in an even higher place, doing good for our planet and ourselves, we could replenish our diminishing middle class, and our democracy would flourish.
So if I were running for President in 2008, I'd focus on a plan for us to break our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic. There's no down side to doing it, it'd improve our planet, our relationship in the Middle East, and our stance all over the world. It's just something that needs to be done because it's something that so adamently dominates our politics.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)