Humanities Seminars

Roots of War Reflection

1)      During the seminar, when we were talking about the author’s motives for putting in a statement about past attempts of abolishing war, and their ineffectiveness, there were thoughts circulating that it was impossible to abolish war, when the comment was made that it might be possible to abolish war.  This comment stuck out to me because I’ve always associated human conflict with war.  After thinking about it though, I realized this wasn’t the case and that smaller conflicts between smaller groups are impossible to control, so to an extent I agree with this comment.  Although it is established that human conflict is a reoccurring thing that may not always be associated with war, human conflict has in past been associated with war several times, so many times, in fact, that originally I had been lead to believe that human conflict always resulted in war.  This comment caught me by surprise, when I realized that I had made an automatic association with something that wasn’t necessarily correct, which only lead me to wonder how many other things I connect together without fully realizing it. 

2)      This topic made me change my thinking about the motives of war.  It wasn’t necessarily comments that made me change my thinking, but my own thoughts, that made me think that war wasn’t entirely internal or external, but maybe even unavoidable.  In philosophy, we recently discussed the difference between free will and determinism.  The ground soldiers obviously don’t have any free will, as commanders order them around, but at the root of it all, I think that determinism comes into play.  I think that war is kind of predestined in the sense that a nation’s governmental decision may give another nation reason to oppose it, and as more and more decisions like the previous are made, things only escalate and end up in chaotic results.  Because there is never a decision that can be made without an opposition, essentially, a disagreement could pre determine a war.

3)      Obviously, one of my connections in this class was with the free will vs. determinism debate in philosophy.  Another connection I made though was an idea I developed a while ago, which was that when somebody is exposed to something constantly at a young age, the subject would do one of two things, continue the action regularly, or be able to restrain themselves from the temptation if the action is undesirable.  This connection had to do with violent behavior and how exposure to violence at an early age affects the person, although usually the latter is seen less commonly in the specific topic of violence.

4)      I think I was strongest in this particular seminar in the area of clarification, because I was constantly clarifying comments, asking questions, and assisting the group to understand a certain concept.  Unfortunately, I feel like because there was so much to clarify, I monopolized the conversation, which has always been a problem with me.  I intend to fix this by waiting at least 3 seconds to see if somebody has asked a question that the group is obviously having trouble answering, and then try to clarify it for the group myself.


Slaughterhouse Five Reflection

 

1)       When Ian made the statement about your life being predetermined and you could alter it within limits, I thought of free will as more of a choice than a decision that would shape your path, because the way I see it now is a preset path that can be altered minimally.  The thought that free will doesn’t exist is kind of scary though.  It brings up the question of whether or not we have any say of what happens in our life, and I think that because humans are so power hungry and want to be as close to god-like as possible, that maybe this idea of free will was made up to make us feel more powerful, when in essence, if we had free will truly the concept might not have ever been brought up or questioned, because there was no doubt. 

2)      Before this seminar, I thought that this book was just a book that didn’t take a hard stance on anything and just presented philosophical theories; but now I think that this book is an anti-militarism book that talks about the values and inevitability of our time.  The last chapter has a passage that talks about how many people on average are born and die each day, and that by a certain year, and overwhelming population will inhabit the earth.  By including this passage, Vonnegut implies that war can be seen as population control.  By also questioning our idea of free will, he implies that our life is predetermined, and that this war is inevitable.  What I take from those two passages are that, in blunt terms, war will be happening anyways so we might as well put it to good use.  I realize that this is kind of an extremist take on both this book and the war, but this book’s ideas and theories are so extreme that it cannot be helped.

3)      During this seminar, when we were discussing free will, I connected to Brave New World, and how their free will compared to Slaughterhouse Five’s.  We were arguing that there was no free will in Vonnegut’s novel, that there was something predetermined, but in Huxley’s novel, there was a pre-determined destiny, but it was determined by other people.  This brings up the question of whether or not there is free will in the first place or if there is and it was simply taken away.  It also made me wonder how the savages will compare to those of society’s norms in BNW, and how the savages compared to Vonnegut’s society, Billy Pilgrim specifically.  I think that the only connection between these two stories is the questioning of free will, because either version of what is being perceived as free will in each story is completely different.

4)      In this seminar, I think I improved substantially in the communication area from the last seminar.  I didn’t dominate the discussion, and I also helped move it along, discussing different ideas or moving on from a kind of repetitive area.  I think that what I need to improve on from this discussion is using outside connections.  I don’t think I have ever used an outside connection or realized this because I was so focused on not monopolizing the conversations, which I finally did!  In order to include outside connections in the future, I think that if we are in the middle of a question during the seminar, and not a lot is being said, that, if it is relevant, I can bring in an experience and see if that goes anywhere, but if it doesn’t, I might wait until something is too closely related to what we are talking about to not share.

Deogratias Seminar Reflection

1)    I think that the most interesting idea presented in our seminar was the reason for Deogratias choosing poison as his method of killing and the significance it held.  What was so interesting about the poison was that it was a poison used to kill parasites on cows.  Tutsis were originally herdsmen, which connected them to cows, and they were dehumanized as vermin, which parasites can fall under the classification of.  This deeper meaning of the poison was only apparent in one frame, otherwise the poison seemed to have no significance whatsoever besides convenience.  But because Deogratias didn’t seem to discriminate between the two ethnicities, I think he may have turned into a twisted means of vengeance.  This really helped me understand Deogratias’s view towards the people he killed.  He didn’t kill them because they were Tutsis, but something had made them seem to him as below human.  That something could have been anything from a personal situation to something specifically having to do with Deogratias’s involvement with the genocide. 

2)    At first, I thought our group’s seminar started off very roughly.  Everybody was interrupting each other, myself included, and at some points there was even a little bit of a sense of disrespect.  However, I thought we were able to pull out of that sticky situation pretty well and everybody put an effort into the seminar, which I thought ended up as a success.  We stopped talking over each other so much, and I feel like a lot of the people who usually don’t get to talk were involved in the discussion.  Tyler presented a different way of looking at a couple of points that the group hadn’t thought of, and Brock made a really interesting point about the significance of the poison.  Trevin was also respectful of other people’s ideas and allowed them to talk, and also provided some very interesting insight and a graphic example of a physical/psychological idea.  Nobody was really monopolizing the conversation and I think that for the most part, the discussion had a good flow.  

Jihad vs. McWorld Seminar

              

Being Peace Seminar Reflection

     

During the seminar, some of the Buddhism concepts that were broken down made me realize and understand the concepts in the Tiep Han order of Buddhism much better.  In the beginning, I was confused because originally, Buddhism originally seemed to me a belief that focused on not believing or becoming too attached to an idea, theology, or doctrine.  When there was discussion over the situations and examples that would go in direct conflict with some of the mindfulness trainings, such as killing over a religion, I was able to start understanding the reasoning behind not believing so strongly in anything, and Aiyana helped me to make that connection.  Because Buddhists value life above all else, they have made the connection that you should not believe in anything that would lead you to kill or put your life in immediate danger.  Jonathan made the comment that if somebody were to oppress him and try to take his religion away from him, he would kill his oppressors in order to maintain his freedom.  This is when I realized why the Buddhists don’t think it’s a good idea to believe in fanaticisms or ideologies, especially strongly enough to be willing to die over it. When I realized this, I was able to piece together the other mindfulness trainings, and I felt that I was much more aware of what this Buddhist Order was trying to obtain.  This was definitely the most enlightening part of the seminar for me. 

During the seminar, we all talked about which mindfulness trainings we struggled with the most.  At the beginning of this conversation, I thought that some people, or most people, were just naturally mean, rude, arrogant, or negative.  I know that I share some of these characteristics, and I am aware of them and I know that I should change them.  What I never thought of was that other people were just as aware as me, and knew that it would be good to change.  My question is, what is stopping us from changing these characteristics?  After a lot of thought and other input, I realized that it might be because we are afraid to change. Everybody is afraid of change because people might start to think of you differently, it might go against societal norms, or it’s way outside of a person’s comfort zone.  But what if we were able to find ourselves, would that help us to move towards that goal of changing our personality flaws.

In the seminar, we determined that finding ourselves was being in touch with our feelings, without the numerous environmental factors being taken into account, and from there we would be able to realize who we really were, completely detached from the judgments, expectations, and standards that have been put into place to moderate the general behavior.  Hanh states that, “we want to be in touch with other things, like religion, sports, politics, a book-we want to forget ourselves,” and I think that his statement is true and that the reason we don’t want to be in touch with ourselves is because, first of all, we are afraid to and unsure of what we would find in ourselves; and second, because we do not want to take the time because society will move on without us, and our whole identity, everything we’ve worked so hard to establish and maintain, could slip right out from under us.  The idea that our identity could vanish scares us so much that we convince ourselves that “it would be better to just not think about it, because the thing I said to that person yesterday didn’t really devastate him, he’ll be fine tomorrow,” and then everything continues just as it was the day before, and the world is a victim of violence once again. 

When I think about how these negative characteristics that are going unchanged, I mainly think about the people, other than myself, who possess these characteristics.  But after thinking about it a little more, I realized the full impact these personality flaws have on their victims.  Several articles have been in the news about kids who have committed suicide because of how badly they were bullied, whether it is physically, mentally, verbally, or even technologically.  None of these tragedies were foreseen because the violence was not addressed, regardless of the level of cruelty or importance the injustice seemed. 

Questions:

1.      What makes the Tiep Han Order so applicable to the Western civilizations?

a.       You could look up the Zen School of Lin Chi, and learn about its relations with the western societies.

b.      You could compare some of the Mindfulness Trainings to the average behaviors or actions of a western society.

c.       You could take the universal Buddhist principles and try to find a way to match them with western civilizations’ standards, and see how they compare with the fourteen mindfulness trainings.

2.      When and why was the idea of Buddhism established?

a.       You could look up the origination of Buddhism.

b.      You could research the time period and the struggles presented in that time period and location. 

c.       You could research the leader of the set of principles of Buddhism to understand his reasoning.

3.      If Buddhists believe in Siddhartha, isn’t that related to believing in God(s)?

a.       You could compare biblical references, Islamic concepts, and Buddhist tests and compare and the reliability of the statements made.

b.      You could research the Buddhist works for how Siddhartha differs from a belief.

c.       You could ask a Buddhist with a deep understanding of Buddha as a person.

The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Seminar Reflection

1. During the seminar, the idea was made that the people who walk away from Omelas die.  I disagreed with this statement because I was and still am under the impression that the people who walk away do not die; they simply wander off to a different place.  It is possible that these people do not take a distinguished route, and then die due to lack of resources, but that is the farthest I would take the assumption that the people of Omelas simply walk away and die.  As I mentioned in the seminar prewrite, I think that the people who walk away serve as an allegory, and, furthermore; the select few that do something right (according to the author’s opinion) in a bad or inhumane situation.  For example, instead of participating knowingly in an act that dehumanizes others, such as a sweatshop, these people, although benefiting from the loss of others, could walk away.  This may not be the most effective solution, but it is at least a small protest against the powers that can inspire and set an example for others.

2. When we discussed what the people who walk away represent, the thought that the people knew that, “there was no grief in Omelas,” was questioned.  If these people did not know that there was no grief in the city, then did they walk away simply because, or did the unknown rule that there was no grief drive them out?  Conversely, if the townspeople knew that there was to be no grief, did the rule drive the people away or the knowledge of what would happen to the griever drive the person out?  Based on the fact that some people got over the fact that there was an insolent child taking on all of the misery of the people of Omelas, I will assume that townspeople themselves would not drive away a griever, because at one point, each of those townspeople were stricken with grief at the sudden knowledge of the adolescent as well.  Also based on my assumption drawn in the first question, I think that a rule did not drive these people out, I think that the ones who walked away simply could not deal with the knowledge of the youth in the cellar, and could not be associated with a town that thrived off of the devastation of one child. 

I do not think that grief was the only thing that drove out those who walked away.  Therefore, I believe that the people of Omelas did not know that there was no grief in Omelas, and they walked away simply because of the bitterness of their unwelcome new knowledge.         The force that drove these people out of Omelas was probably a mix of resentful emotions, such as despair, disgust, guilt, being indignant, etc.  I doubt that a lot of these people did it because they felt it was the right thing, because I think that a person who would feel so strongly about the subject would probably take a more opposing action, such as actually attempting to free the child or talk some sense into the other people of Omelas.  The action of walking away was not made to benefit the child in the cellar, but simply to ease the mind of those who could not bear the idea of that child in the cellar looming over their thoughts any longer, unless they were no longer involved in the child’s misery.  At most the people who walked away from Omelas presented a small, momentary protest to the child’s complete misery.

3. Throughout the seminar, I kept connecting the child in the cellar to a feral child, because although the adolescents in the cellar are exposed to society, this child has either become dormant from the process of it’s downfall, or the child was born into the cellar and was never even exposed to societal norms.  I thought it was especially interesting how the author chose to imply that these children had at one point been introduced to the societal norms, but had lost any recollection of these norms, or any form of communication at all, until they reached a point at which the author described characteristics that resemble those of a feral child, such as lying in its own feces, or being stuck with fear by everyday objects, such as mop and bucket. 

4. Questions

            1.  Is Omelas supposed to serve as an example or substitute of happenings elsewhere?

                        a.  You could read an interview with the author explaining her motivations for key concepts in the text.

                        b.  You could research human rights violations throughout the world and compare them to the events in the texts.

            2.  How does the dehumanization of this child compare to the classification systems, specifically the lower part of these systems, compare to those of other societies?

                        a.  You could research the different systems of government used by diverse societies, and compare the societal functions of the societies.

                        b.  You could cross reference the history of a society’s ladder with its current societal ladder and see how the two have compared.

                        c.  You could compare patterns in governmental systematic changes concerning the classification of society with examples from the text.

            3.  Why does the author set up the story so that it seems fantastical when she wants us to “believe” in the people of Omelas?

                        a.  You could research literary techniques that are commonly used by authors and see if anything relates to what she did in the text.

                        b.  You could consider how the text would read if she weren’t to set up the story the way she had, and see if anything concerning the story might change due to the alterations.  Þ  If the author were to make the text seem less fantastical, I think that people would automatically doubt the validity of her argument for the people of Omelas, because she would not be able to explain why these people seemed so fantastical, but were actually realistic enough for us to be able to compare societal factors. 

Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of a New Man Seminar Reflection

This painting seems very controversial to me because Surrealism is supposed to take this idea of “not making sense” and incorporate a kind of dream-like fantasy, but what really did not seem to fit with this picture was that it was made without thinking.  The Geopolitical Child painting definitely had a lot of thought going into the ideas being introduced and conveyed in the painting.  For example, there is no way Dali could have relayed the significance of the muscle distribution on the parental figure without putting intense thought into how he would symbolize all of these ideas that were so relevant to what was going on in the world at that time.  I also think that this painting is more symbolic than it is surreal, because of how deeply you can consider the reality of the different objects in the painting. 

  Despite my doubts about whether or not this is a surrealist painting, I really like this painting because of the complexities associated with the objects in the painting.  I especially like how deeply you can consider the meaning of these objects.  Especially because Dali didn’t talk about his art a lot, I thought it was cool that because we didn’t have a definite answer, that there wasn’t exactly a wrong answer to what the painting represented.  I think the reason I like the indefiniteness of Dali’s work is because it makes you consider all of the possibilities instead of having to build off of just one view point or idea.   If a picture is worth a thousand words, Dali’s seem to be infinitely long essays.

I think that my favorite aspect of this piece is the man breaking out of the egg of the world.  The reality of his body posture and appearance seem very real to me, which only adds to my interest, because I never would have thought that somebody would be able to draw a man coming out of an egg well.  Not only did Dali capture this idea in an art sense, but I think that all of the tiny details, such as the cracks on the egg, in the painting.  Firstly, the egg representing the word as a whole has meaning; implying that the world is fragile and man can easily destroy and ravage it.  The fact that the countries are melting symbolizes that this man, in his attempt to escape the shell of the world, is hurting these countries as well as dividing them.  I think that the fact that the man is coming out of America is very significant because of how he is coming out in the form as a very strong, powerful man.  But I think that the most interesting thing about this man is how Dali portrays him.

This new man does have some fearsome characteristics, such as how only his hand is able to warp the world.  The sorrowful face of the adult and the cautionary pose of the child also associate bad traits with the new man.  But some characteristics about the man also imply that he too is vulnerable, and that his “birth” may not even be for the worst.  The fact that the man is still contained in the egg automatically gives a sense of weakness to the man, struggling to escape his shell.  Also, the glow around the egg suggests a glorification of this man’s birth.      I think that overall, this painting was one of the most symbolic and insightful pieces I have ever seen or taken the time to interpret.

Dulce et Decorum Est Seminar Reflection

The different view points about the common saying that is was “sweet and right to die for your country” really interested me because I was in the complete mindset that it really wasn’t, but after hearing some of the other perspectives on the issue, especially Jonathan’s, my perspective viewpoint on the topic wavered a little bit.  Jonathan pointed out that somebody had to fight for the country, and it was kind of inevitable that somebody would die in war, and if they die fighting to protect their country, then maybe it should be considered sweet and right because you are acting to protect everything you are represented by.  Regardless of Jonathan’s argument, I still think that the literal meanings of the words are inaccurate.  I think that a more valid suggestion would be, “it is honorable dying to defend your country,” with great emphasis on the defend because otherwise, you are dying simply for your country’s advancement, which, in my opinion, can in no way be classified as sweet, right, or honorable.

From this seminar process, especially during the D/C Journal, I learned, and am still learning, that even the most literal things can be metaphorical.  At the beginning of this week, I took everything for granted because I am so inexperienced at analyzing poetry.  For example, when Owen writes, “Men marched asleep.  Many had lost their boots…” I automatically interpreted that as men marching falling asleep due to sleep deprivation.  One of the most interesting things about poetry that I learned this week though is that some poems are so carefully thought out that they can deliver both their literal, deeper and/or metaphorical messages.  The deeper message in this line being that, these men had been exposed to so much that they were numb to their surroundings, and they took notice to very little.  The poem even later goes on to explain that they were “deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind,” which really clarifies just how much they had been through, if they paid such little notice to explosive shells.  From examples such as these, I have come to find that even the smallest, most seemingly unimportant details can greatly contribute to the poem.

As explained in the first paragraph, I believe that it is never “sweet and right” to die for your country.  A man or woman should never be obligated to die for their country, which is what the term sweet and right implies to me.  However, I think that a person who dies strictly for protecting his country and what it stands for is honorable.   The difference between the two is the messages implied by the different sayings.  By making sure that the defensive aspect is the part worth dying for, it implies that this man had sacrificed his life in order to protect those relying on that soldier’s defense.  This kind of story is an admirable, although tragic story that would provide children with important life lessons, but, as Owen quotes, “you would not tell with such high zest to children ardent for some desperate glory, the old Lie; Dulce et Decorum Est Pro patria mori,” because these children would imagine simply sacrificing themselves for their country in a war, despite the fact that it wasn’t for the protective interest of their country. As a result, everything in that child’s mind, who may eventually become a soldier and develop the idea further, would eventually destroy him for all the wrong reasons.