Evil Civilization

When looking back in our past, there is a clear distinction in how much more civilized humans have become. We no longer are running around naked or living in houses made out of mud. However, how civilized are humans really? Civilized people don't savagely kills others or do hard drugs to experience a sort of happiness in their life. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde shows how civilization in humans is very confused. Dr. Jekyll is very civilized: using manners and not ever being violent towards other people. But Mr. Hyde is a murderer and rapist who has no morals what so ever. When thinking of Mr. Hyde, you think of a very uncivilized person who one could never imagine being in our world today. But we have murderers and rapists all over the world. This just shows that there is evil in our world, a lot of evil. However, when one thinks of evil they may think of witches and dark magic, just like in the novel of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but I believe evil is seen in our world today in those people who commit those horrible crimes. With civilization does not come purity, or a lack of evil. A huge evil has been seen right here in the United States very recently: the bombing in Boston. Who bombs a place that is causing no harm to anyone? It was a friendly, competitive race. This is a perfect description of evil because many people were killed and injured for no reason what so ever. Evil exists a lot in our world today, even though we are more civilized then we used to be.

Like A Compass That Points North

I was taken off guard by question 16 of the A Thousand Splendid Suns Socratic seminar questions because it asks us to discuss the statement "accusing fingers always find a woman." In the novel  you see a lot of accusations being directed towards the women, but when you think about it, a lot of accusations go towards women in America and everyday life as well. In Afghanistan it is probably a lot more typical for accusing fingers to point towards women because men can get away with whatever they want when its against a female. Women are supposed to obey their husband or even any other mans command and with the slightest fault from them they can be accused for disobedience or betrayal, even if its an accident. In America men still seem to blame women when something goes wrong, whether its in finances in a marriage or even when talking about rape. Many rape cases end without a conviction of the man because there is no physical proof that the woman was raped. A woman's word has no worth against a man's if she can be proven to be promiscuous. Some men will say, "Well, she was dressed and acting like she wanted it" and that can sometimes be enough reason to let him go free and make it seem like it was the womans fault. That confuses me so much because who is to judge whether a woman's outfit is promiscuous when it could just be what she feels pretty in, it doesn't mean she is looking for sex. And any sex without consent is rape, and everybody knows that, so there is no excuse. Also, many men think they are higher in status then women which leads them to believe that they also can control them. Many times men get paid more in their jobs simply because they are males. Also many CEO's are men when very few are women because few women are put into that position because they are thought of as weak and unable to lead a company into prosperity. I believe that if more women were put into higher positions and given more equality that whenever anything went wrong, they would be pointed at and blamed. But if people continued to allow them to be in those positions, then accusations would start to decrease and would then begin to be directed at men as well. Even today, Obama is focusing on fighting for women's equality in the USA and men are back lashing saying that it is a waste of money going straight to support abortion clinics. That just shows how little respect men have for women and their hard set mind of believing we are not equal.

The Creep

The Yellow Wallpaper was actually very interesting for me to read, and while we discussed it I realized even more how creepy it actually was. A question from the Socratic seminar that I found the most interesting was number 8: "Who is the woman behind the yellow wallpaper, who looks out through its bars at the narrator as she sleeps? Why does she creep about the yard and garden at night?" I think the woman behind the yellow wallpaper is a portrayal of the narrator herself. She obviously has some form of a mental disorder by the point that she begins to examine the wallpaper. It may not be severe case of a mental illness, but when one begins to examine and think about wallpaper and hate it then like it so much, there is definitely something wrong. To normal, sane people, it is just yellow wallpaper with patterns on it. Also, the narrator says the room she is staying in is a nursery, when it obviously is not. The windows are barred, the bed is fastened to the floor so it cannot be moved, and there are rings on the walls that are used to restrain someone. She may think they are just staying there to help her get away from everything, but her husband really took her as an initial step to heal her mental illness, hoping it would not get any worse. This is all proof that the narrator is mentally ill. Thus, when she begins to see women behind the pattern in the wallpaper it is showing that her mental state is getting worse. At first when she sees multiple women imprisoned in the wall it could be her portrayal of any woman who is being told they have a mental illness and all of their initial steps that the world gives them to cure it. They are are locked away and monitored with thoughts from physicians that solitude and control will cure them, and the women in the wallpaper represent them being locked away against their will. This is when the narrator still has some grip on reality and recognizes that she is being cared for because of an illness. The single woman behind the yellow wallpaper is solely the narrator, once she completely loses saneness. She wants to help let her out so badly, and doesn't want anyone elses help and once she finally is 'let out' she acts as if she was the woman behind the wall. I don't really understand why the woman creeps about outside during the day though other then the narrator is crazy and obsessed with the wallpaper and the woman behind it so then it is constantly on her mind and sees her outside at all times through the windows. And when the narrator creeps around the room once she 'lets the woman out' I believe it is just because she has gone crazy and now she believes she is the woman she always saw creeping around, so now she is reenacting that. The way that women were treated back then for their mental illnesses is a lot different then how mental patients are treated today, but there are some similarities. While patients aren't confined alone in a room anymore and forced to just lie there and eat milk products to boost weight, they still are confined to a specific room/area at certain times of the day (examples: dorm room, cafeteria, group discussion room, psychiatrist room..) and given medicine at night to force them into a sleep. Media and society portrays mental hospitals as horrendous, misunderstood places probably because of the reps they received from earlier mental practices, however they do help patients a lot and although they do perform some practices that I disagree with (forced sleep and forced schedules) they have evolved quite well. I completely disagree with the practices perform in the past for mental disorders for women and I have not the slightest clue how they thought forcing them to sleep all the time and feeding them milk products was supposed to solve anything. Isolation from everyone probably made them worse and I don't understand how they could not see that. In The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator was not very sick and wanted to go visit her cousins and be around people, but by forcing her into isolation and to stay in a house that she did not like and not allowing her to write in her journal so she had to sneak it, drove her to the point of a mental breakdown.

Cultural Relativism

"Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits."- Ruth Benedict

Cultures have many different moral codes, but in the end they are all generally the same. While one culture may think it is morally correct to have something eat the dead body of one of its members and the other think it is morally correct to have them burned, they both are the same in the thought that the dead bodies should be gotten rid of in some fashion. This is the same to how our culture believes in either cremating or burying the dead bodies of our loved ones; we are still doing something with the body to get rid of it. In saying that, I agree there is no right or wrong method, it is all based on the culture. While one may be disgusted at the thought that people may feed the dead bodies to an animal, they have no right to judge or retaliate because that is what the people of that culture think is honorable. They would think burning the bodies is totally disrespectful, but it is just the opinion. This could lead to many clashes between cultures if they were being mixed with one another. How would they decide which method is the correct one? Another question brought up is what would you do if in one culture it was custom to kill everybody of a certain race? Like with the Holocaust, is it considered a moral code for the Germans to kill the Jews? And if you can consider it like that, how was it valid for everyone to try and stop them if that was their morals that we have no right to judge? I believe that moral codes can only be brought to an extent. In harmless matters such as the burning or eating of dead bodies, then that is all based on the opinions of that culture. When much more serious matters come into play like genocide, then you have every right to step in. While I believe it is sort of a moral code, it is too extreme and should be tampered with. In addition, our moral codes are definitely not all perfect, which cultural relativism would forbid us to say. One example of an imperfection in our moral codes is many believing men are superior to women. Which leads into moral progress, because the role of women and their power has greatly increased over time and is still leading towards 100% equality. Moral codes are typically generated through many facts and religion, in addition to values. This accounts for the difference in customs, the different contributions of different aspects. Like all cultures have different moral codes, they also have many that are alike. For example, the caring of infants because they cannot take care of themselves and they are the future of that culture. I agree with the two lessons we should learn from the theory of cultural relativism. It does show that many of our practices are peculiar to our society, and not able to be proven correct. If so, then everyone would have the same moral codes. Also keeping an open mind with moral codes is essential to daily life, getting along with people of different views, and ultimately living a happy life.

Wuthering Frights

Wuthering Heights was once said to be one of the greatest romances in literature. It is said to be passionate, empowering, and completely spell-binding, but, probably only to those who read it about 100 years ago. However, with closer research it was found that Wuthering Heights was actually rejected when it first was published, saying it was depressing and morose, and even immoral. I feel as if those are the same reactions many kids today are displaying when we first read it in school. So why is this novel on many of the top 10 "Greatest Romance" lists? I believe that many people just found comfort and excitement in the depiction of a soul mate, which made people love Heathcliff and his desire to do whatever it took to be with his beloved Catherine, even if it was to be buried with her when they both died. Everybody loved the fact that someone would go at such lengths to be with someone they loved, and probably like to imagine someone doing the same for them. I however, thought this was the farthest thing from a great romance. I can see how Emily Bronte intended for it to be a romantic novel, but I don't believe she achieved it. Heathcliff was can almost be considered psycho at the lengths at which he went to get Catherine. There definitely was nothing romantic about opening up the side of her coffin and being buried next to her. I'm sure that if Catherine was alive and knew he was going to do that, then she would probably would get a restraining order in modern times. As well, the characters were not like-able at all, so there was no one to really root for. It was as if it didn't matter if Catherine was with Heathcliff or Edgar because every single one of them had unlikeable traits. Catherine wouldn't marry Heathcliff just because others thought so badly of him, and in a good love story she would over look that and never agree to marry Edgar. In addition, even after she is married she still confesses her love to Heathcliff and tells him to be with her, but she's still with Edgar the whole time. In a true great romance, Catherine wouldn't want both men, she would choose her true love which is Heathcliff. Heathcliff also wouldn't try to get revenge on Catherine, he should be happy for her that she had found someone to marry. Heathcliff also did some psycho things like killing Isabella's dog by hanging it, and kidnapping Cathy and Nelly which is not romantic at all. Wuthering Heights reminds me of Twilight a lot. It has generally the same story line of 1 girl, 2 guys want to be with her, and she must choose who to be with. However, I believe Twilight is a much better romance then Wuthering Heights. I believe Bella made the right decision by being with Edward instead of Jacob. Although it was a hard decision, Edward was her obvious true love. If Wuthering Heights was to be a great romance then Catherine would have been with Heathcliff. I believe that to be a romance, there must be some sort of happiness and approval of the two people being together, and the closest that gets in Wuthering Heights is Heathcliff wanting to be buried with Catherine so they could be together in the after life. But that's more creepy then romantic.

Hurricanes and Fate

Today in class we argued for quite some time regarding question number 7 for the Oedipus Socratic seminar about whether Oedipus had a chance at all to relinquish the fate the oracle had made for him. This fate was that Oedipus was to kill his father and marry his mother. I believe he had no chance what-so-ever to change the fate he was given. By definition, fate is the development of events outside of a person's control. To me 'outside of a person's control' means they have no way, at all, to change the fate they were given. You may go down different pathways and choose different events along the way, but the end result is already chosen. Even if they go specifically out of their way to avoid it, them doing so is still the fate or 'plan' that was set for them. Some people said that if Oedipus' mother and father had kept him and had told him that specific fate, then it would have been avoided, but I believe somehow it still would happen. Even though marriage is between 2 people there still could have been some twisted event that could bring Oedipus and his mother together, like both of them getting drunk and accidentally marrying each other in their drunken state. Also, if Oedipus tried to avoid his father at all costs so that he wouldn't kill him, something still would probably happen like Oedipus accidentally leaving some food out that his father was allergic to. There is absolutely no way Oedipus could have avoided the fate that was already set for him, the Oracle had already seen it coming and knew that those events would occur. The length at which Oedipus' parents set to avoid the fate, and it still happening even proves that fate cannot be changed. The death of Oedipus' father and the marriage between son and mother happened in the most round-about way possible. Fate could be linked to almost any current event in society today. Many people believe that every possible thing that happens today is because of fate. There are even some cases involving the upcoming election where some people aren't even going to vote because they believe fate has already chosen who is going to be the next president. Also, regarding hurricane Sandy, some people even go to the extent to believe that it was fate that brought all the destruction and chaos in just the form of a storm, they don't believe that its just a result from intense low pressure areas over warm ocean waters.

Racism

I think question 18 of the Invisible Man socratic seminar is a very important topic to the book, and it actually surprised me that no one chose to talk about it. It talks about the significance of Liberty Paint Company in the novel, referring to how they manufactured white paints that were said to be the whitest and purest paints in all America, even though they were made from 10 drops of black dye. It is significant because it symbolizes how whites think they are superior to black people, thinking that blacks are dirty and unpure. However, the paint being made from black dye proves that blacks are a neccessary part in making the 'pure paint' and also a necessary element in society. Its also significant how before the black dye is added, the paint is a foul, milky brown substance that turns 'brilliantly white' when the black is added. This shows how society would be foul and ugly without the mix of both races. In addition, the worker who shows the narrator how to produce the paint states that the Optic Paint's pure whiteness can cover anything, like how the whiteness covers up the black dye, illustrating how blacks become obscured by white people and do and say whatever the whites want. Also it shows how whites are just covering up the issue of racism instead of dealing with it. This is still shown today with the racism that still exists in the world. White people think they are superior to blacks and walk all over them like its no one's bussiness. Some white people are even violent towards blacks over the smallest of things like property and money. We still hear about in the news how someone killed or harrassed another person just because they were of a different race. Only about a month ago, a young white girl named Jane Champion was beaten up by her own parents, David and Frances Champion, for dating a black boy. The parents showed up at the boyfriends house screaming racial abuse towards him so loud and vial that the police were called.  Before police arrived however, David Champion punched Jane in the face several times while her mother watched before punching Jane herself. The parents claim they beat up their daughter for "bringing shame to the family" which I think is completely ridiculous.  It's stupid how people today can't get over the old racist ways. I can understand how some older people in the world could still hold on to racist hatred because they've grown up with it, even though I feel like they should just accept the fact that the majority of society has matured enough to understand everyone is equal. But seeing people of my generation and even a little bit older being racist is just stupid. We've all been taught growing up that we are all equal and skin color makes no difference to who we are as individuals. People need to get over themselves and stop hating others because of something as little as what color their skin is.