dilliciousdelapickle-blog

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

The Problem with Diversity

There are 7 to 8 billion people in the world right now, over 100 countries, and thousands ,if not millions, of cultures to go along with that. In short, we are all different. With a gamut of personalities, beliefs, and problems, it can be easy for us to find common ground, but as Kimberlee Williams Crenshaw points out, “ ignor[ing] intra group differences [and their ...] contexts” can be problematic. In her example, Crenshaw looks at violence among women. Crenshaw reveals just how general and ambiguous this topic is. While stopping the wellbeing of women is an easy subject to support, one must understand the various types of violence among Caucasian women, African American women, immigrants, and etc. It isn’ t easy to grasp or relate to everything we are exposed to, regardless of how open minded we are. I always try to be open minded and personally understand that the world is very diverse because I have lived in multiple countries and have travelled a lot, but there are still times when I simply can’t grasp the problems or ideas of others no matter how hard I try. When we try to solve problems but do not address other related issues, we can end up causing more pain than intended.

Jessica’s Miley Cyrus example brings up another issue that I am often conflicted about. Shaming. I agree with Jessica, it does seem wrong that Miley Cyrus is seemingly trying to capitalize on the feminist agenda and she isn't the first celebrity to do this, but it can be difficult for people to turn over a new leaf when others shame them for their poor decisions. In the end we create a contradictive system in which we want everyone to support our agenda, but don't want just anyone to defending and by doing this we are again ignoring the multiple underlying issues that Crenshaw is trying to address.

I can support gender equality and can parade about as much as I want to, but at the end of the day, I'm a guy and I don't understand what its like to be a girl. Sure, I have a sister and I definitely get mad whenever someone tries to take advantage of her, but I can only observe. Similarly, you would not know what it is like to be like me because I come from a completely different culture than you.

In the end, the problem with diversity is that it makes true understanding impossible, but there’s nothing wrong with that. The one thing that can truly irritate me is people who do not try to understand and just try to attack or oppress things they don't understand, like “Alice Walker’s novel, The Color Purple” (Crenshaw). The point of the book was to point out and display “violence within the Black community”, but in the end people got offended because they thought Walker was “portraying Black men as violent brutes [or was...] lambasted Walker for the portrayal of Celie” (Crenshaw). However, Critiquing the characters is silly because they are all different; “Celie may be unlike any Black woman we know because the terror experienced daily by minority women is routinely concealed” (Crenshaw). We don't have to understand everything we read or see ,but showing empathy is a good a first step to solving the problem. Like Kennon said in an earlier post, the significance of an ally can be significant, especially for minorities.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Oh, Sophocles you've done it again

For those of you didn’t know, Sophocles is the epitome of the Greek tragedian. By tragedian, I mean the Greek tragedy which entails a story in which ,surprise, there is a tragic ending. Anyways, Antigone dies, but that's not it. Harmon kills himself and Creon’s pride and heart is broken. What a tragedy!

As I said before, Antigone could be a bit more humble to the Creon ,but I also agree with Lizzie, Reim, and pretty much everybody else who agrees that Antigone was an exemplary rebel. She was willing to risk her life for her cause. Her intrinsic ideas and ideas mattered most to her and she exemplified the courage kind of courage O’ Brien was only able to think of. While O’Brien only valued his ideology enough to just disagree with his authority, but Antigone actually acted. She put “the money where her mouth was” and showed more action than Creon thought she would. What Antigone ends up showing is true courage, regardless of being “ Bereaved of friends, in utter misery,“(Sophocles 1057)

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Jekyll and Hyde

Antigone and Dr. Martin Luther King share a few things in common. As most of my classmates have pointed out Antigone and Martin Luther King Jr. share a similar predicament. An authoritative figure who claims that they are doing “what concerns [the] commonwealth“; ,but are both able to see that this statement is a lie (Sophocles 187). Unlike Ivan Iliac is ignorant of his problems, King and Antigone realize that their authoritative figure -the government of the United States of American and King Creon- "haven't been fair" (Martin Luther King). Contrary to the subjects of Stanly Milgram experiment who subjected themselves to authority, King and Antigone are not willing to let others be oppressed. I like how Kennon and Reim quote King's Allusion to the parable of the good Samaritan. When the Samaritan sees an injured man of another ethnicity he thinks: “if I don’t stop to help this man, what will happen to him?, This thought is a direct sign of empathy and sympathy which is what Martin Luther King was trying to teach others when defending the rights of the Sanitation workers. Antigone exemplifies the idea of empathy when defending the right for her brothers burial. While Creon is thinking about how the burial will affect his kingdom, Antigone is focused on the  “individual effect“ that Creon’s actions are having. I believe that both Martin Luther King Jr. and Antigone were courageous because as Kennon also pointed out Antigone was a woman in a society were women were often oppressed and King was a black man during American segregation. Both of them had a threat that was bigger than them; however, they were able to overcome their inner turmoil's and do what they believed was right. I think King was right to do what he did the way he did because he thought it out and portrayed what Socrates and Laches would call wise endurance ,but I think that Antigone could calm down a bit. I do understand her pain and why she acts but at times because of her emotion she teeters into the territory foolish endurance. Either way, I admire both characters for their ability to take a stand against authority for the betterment of others.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

metamorphosis

After the second world war, America was the leader of the free world. America considered itself the best and most powerful country and considered itself invincible. This sentiment is still carried by some this day as America has thought of itself as the “police of the world” and lately, has gotten itself into multiple wars that were supposed to be quick, but ended out drawing out and causing controversy. Such is the tale of the Vietnam war. This war was supposed to be quick and simple. The American army outnumber the Vietcong and had access to more supplies. However, as the war drew out the American army had been outsmarted, slowed down, and bombarded. This became a war of skirmishes and of attrition. The progression of the language in O’Brien’s If I Die in a Combat Zone changes similarly to how the war was thought about before. At first he he is cautious and distant only thinking about the war and about his fear off it, but as time goes on O’Brien’s writing and the war become more real and vivid. I believe that this helps us understand O’Brien’s progression as a character and shows how much everything has changed around him.

When he makes the quote about courage being “a power that through everything will preserves [...] opinion[s]” (O’Brien 190). I believe O’Brien has gotten to the point in which he has very little to stand for. His conflicted feelings over the war have made him rethink who he is and not in a good way. Because, as we have agreed, courage is based on ones definition or their virtues, O’Brien isn’t courageous. He fought in the war and killed innocent people which is cowardly because he honestly thought the war was evil. At a certain point, he feels his “core”  has been broken, but he is not inhumane. His consciousness allows him to feel “guilt [for killing] intentionally” which is where this book comes into play(O’Brien 194). By acknowledging his mistakes, O’Brien is facing an awful past and is analyzing what he had done. He does not make excuses, but only tells it as it was and is genuine about his feelings. By doing this, O’Brien is showing courage and compassion and is showing that he is still humane.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Call it Courage

As we declared in class today, courage is a relative term; however, after reading If I Die in a Combat Zone, I believe that O’Brien was truly showing bravery in his demeanor during the war. It is true that in the beginning, O’Brien is terrified of the war and does “not want to be a soldier”(O’Brien 22). He is fearful and does not have an easy choice. He can either join a war in which American soldiers were slaughtered daily or he could commit treason during the age of the red scare. O’ Brien decides to fight even though he "vehemently against the war” (O’Brien, 60). O’Briien’s demeanor may sound very conflicting but he makes it evident that he does not want to partake in the war. In his own way, he is being brave by doing what he does not believe in because he is doing it for others rather than himself. Most of our discussion in class was about him being hesitant about his position in the military. but I think we forgot to look at the fact that all of his struggle was mostly internal. He and his coalition disagree with the war by making snarky remarks and as Lizzie pointed out O’Brien “imagined his ‘intriguing’ girl with her ‘sandy’ hair (O’Brien 92). “, which is also a form of revolting from the army because he is trying to keep his identity in tact (Lizzie). This thought shows that O’Brien is desperately trying to fight against his own fears but is not giving into a system in which he loses his own identity and I believe that his courage is a mix of the “wise endurance” and “foolish endurance” that Socrates talks about in Laches. Firstly, O’ Brien is foolish to join a war when he does not think he is even suitable for warfare. His fears cripples away at his sense of humanity; however, he is willing to put his fears aside during battle and never really jeopardizes anything when he fights, which is what I would consider a sign of wise endurance. In his own way, O’Brien is being brave by putting fears aside to fight for his country even though at heart he is scared about the war. I believe his feelings are understandable and better yet prove how courageous he is. He’s not a “sell out” but is willing to fight for the “greater good” and show his dissatisfaction as well.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Everyone’s an expert

In “Laches”, Laches and Nicias argue over how young men should be trained for battle. Their argument over whether young men should be trained with armor is tedious and full of many smaller questions and in the end, Socrates  simply states that he has no answer. All my classmates have made good arguments about how bravery is addressed in Laches. I agree with most of what I read and in order to try to diversify this thread, I would like to look at how Socrates’ questioning shows the uncertainty and chaos that is war. Often, we look at war as black and white, there’ s a good side and bad side, but it is more complex then that. Braver and “ courage [are] one of the parts of virtue“, depending on how one person may define ,but is different when we ask someone else (Plato 684 E). Though as Lizzie stated “ Socrates tried to make it seem that a foolish endurance is more courageous than a wise endurance”, he also claimed that he had no true understanding of bravery and courage which makes this claim an absurdity. Socrates mostly poses questions to make Laches and Nicias rethink their beliefs. I believe that Socrates is trying to tell Laches and Nicias that there is no real definition for courage because it depends on what one considers a part of “virtue”. He also talks about knowledge; “There is not one kind of knowledge by which we know how things have happened in the past, and another by which we know how they are happening at the present time, and still another by which we know how what has not yet happened might best come to be in the future, but that the knowledge is the same in each case“ (Plato 198 D). Thus, Socrates is saying we only have knowledge not courage. Because courage is relative, the only necessary for any task is knowledge and by using knowledge one can create definition for bravery and courage.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Stu-u-u-pendous! - Barney

In Tim O’Brien’s “If I Die in a Combat Zone”, the reader is able to view the story of the Vietnamese war through the eyes of a soldier, similar to Forest Gump. My classmates - David, Antonia, Magalj, and Kennon, have addressed the overarching themes of fear and bravery in this story. Each of my classmates have made many good cases about how the war affects soldiers and about how much resilience and perseverance was needed to survive. To further their thought, I would like to look at one of the first characters introduced in the book, Barney. O’Brien makes Barney’s role definite from the onset comparing Barney to “a little kid [because ...] Barney had heart”(O’ Brien 5). Children are often used in cinematography and literature as a sign of hope and innocence and Barney is no exception.  When asked how he is always so jovial, he reply's by letting the narrator no that “ you just can’t let it [(the war)] get you down”. Meaning that he has made the choice to be hopeful which is a necessary facet in maintaining one’s mental health. Because Barney is young, he is very hopeful and still has faith. When the narrator says “it’s hopeless”, he tells O’Brien “there’s always a chance , [...] Always a chance”(O’ Brien 5). When Bates jokes that the Vietcong may be out of mortar rounds, Barney is immediately hopeful, "staring at [Bates] , thinking then smiling [because ..] the idea excited him" (O'Brien 10). This shows just how much of a trope Barney is because he is innocent, vulnerable, and naïve. I don’ t know if I can commend O’Brien for this choice in character. Though Barney is a good representation of how many young men were hopeful and naïve -especially after winning World War Two, Barney’ s character is not too complex and is pretty one dimensional. O’Brien probably wrote Barney like this on purpose; however, I believe that there is still room to further develop his character.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Three is a magic number

   There are many ways to analyse how Ivan and Socrates are different. Ivan sees himself in his family and friends and realizes that “a terrible and huge deception [... has ...] hidden both life and death” (Tolstoy Chapter XI). This deception is hard to identify through Ivan Ilyich. We have created many theories of what this deception could be : being content, privileged, and ignorant. With the addition of Socrates who believed in “coming to the aid of the just things” rather than “ run [...] risk with the law” (Plato 32C), we see that Socrates does “ not even care d about death in any way at all”(Plato  32D). Instead, his focus is  “to commit no unjust or impious deed” (Plato 32D). I believe that by being focused on something that truly matters to him, Socrates has found his point for living; Ivan did not really have any purpose but to do what he was told would work. Thus, I think Jason description of “Socrates [as] accept[ant] that he will eventually face death.” is also very comparable to Gerasim statement about death being“ God’s will [and about how w]e shall all come to it someday,’ ”(Tolstoy Chapter 1). It is interesting how throughout the Stanley experiment, people who were very susceptible to obeying authority against the will tended to make excuses and to justify their positions like Ivan’s friends and the jurors and accusers of Athens. Even though, it was their choice, they allowed themselves to believe that they had no choice and often used many absurdities or fallacies to try and argue the case, regardless of how silly it sounded.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Sócrates Brasileiro Sampaio de Souza Vieira de Oliveira

I agree with many people about how Ivan Ilyich and Socrates are foils of each other. Austin and Ryan make good points about how “Socrates is on a higher plane of consciousness” compared to others and about how “he knows that the wiser man lives cognizant of the fact that he truly knows nothing”,but I think that a lot of people are looking at how great Socrates is compared to Ivan. I think it is more significant to analyse the causes of these differences. Socrates’ court case is a great example of why Ivan is the way he is. Being a nonconformist such as Socrates is not necessarily an easy path to take. He has been verbally assaulted and accused many times and has been such an outcast that he must be interrogated for his beliefs. People often forget to see how special Socrates was because he made many true claims without the technology to prove his claims; Making claims such as this is not easy. One does not simply do something as special as what Socrates has done and being different is not simple. If Ivan were to be like Socrates, he would be criticized like his brother all the time and would be ridiculed as well. Giving up a good job, with a great position, is not easy to do and isn’t necessarily the smartest thing for everyone to do. Thus, it is easy to see how Ivan could have fallen into the lie that is being content with being ignorant.  The essential difference between Ivan and Socrates is that Ivan is ok with being ignorant until it hurts him and Socrates acts to understand so that he is prepared. Therefore, Ivan is not wrong for being a follower he simply fails in playing it safe and following a group of people who do not have his happiness in consideration. His reliance on others and on a system built from ignorance is what fails him, while Socrates is prepared for anything. Ironically, in the end , Ivan is happiest when he works because he is in charge and knows everything about his occupation ,but dies with the realization that he knows very little and Socrates lived life believing that he simply “ does not even suppose I know” ,but is commonly thought of as one of the greatest scholars ( Apology 21D).

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Push it to the limit

Sadly nature does not show equality to everyone. Some people are luckier than others and we do not all get the same chances. Since the time of the Neanderthals, humans have lived in communities just as how it is common for animals to have dominant members or an alpha. Someone had to be in charge and others had to follow and since then, governments and society have taken the place of authority. Thus due to tens of thousands of years of adaptation, it is not surprising to hear that people are susceptible to the power of authority and are thus obedient; however, it is only surprising how much people are willing to tolerate. Such is the case of the Milgram experiment, in which people administered “shocks” to others as a part of a test. It is interesting to see how even though most situations caused “tension [of ...] extremes that are rarely seen [and ...]  were observed to sweat tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh” (Milgram 6). Although these people were not comfortable and could tell that something about their situation was wrong, they chose to continue and keep on going. I agree with most of my classmates. I agree with all my classmates that their actions are akin to that of Ivan Ilyich who keeps on living by everybody else's rules even though he can feel that something is wrong. I agree with Maggly and Jessica Davis on the idea that free will and power are all relative to who we around. In Ivan, power and free will are dictated by his family and his job; In the experiment, power and free will are dictated by the authority figure. However, I would like to point out that power and free will are ultimately up to Ivan and the teacher/ subject. The subject could stop the tests if they were persistent in asking to stopping them and as we can see in Ivan’s youngest brother, Ivan could have a life of full meaning if he wanted too. In the end nobody is truly forcing anything and everything comes down to a decision. Thus, Ivan Ilyich and the experiment show that everything intersects at the decision of the subject and leaves us, the reader and even Stanley Milgram, to wonder why decide to pick the easy the solution if it is ultimately wrong and harmful.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

I was wrong ( well partially).

Although I want to write over 400 words, I am limited and will chose to focus on the change in my position from my first blog to this one. Earlier, I had stated that judging Ivan Ilyich on the first two chapters of the book and I still agree with that a lot of assumptions made earlier, were very speculative; however, I do believe that I was wrong about my stance on Kennon and Antonia's discussion about Ivan and power. Previously, I stated that Ivan had not changed but was instead two faced ,but now I think that Kennon had been right about there being a change in Ivan’s approach to living - his sense of morality and his understanding of the world.  As we stated in class, Ivan’s whole life is a part of the insignificant rat race that life can be, if one does not have any intrinsic values. I also believe that Jessica Galloway builds upon this idea beautifully by summarizing that“after spending his life chasing a spot at the top of the social ladder and rejecting any other form of meaningful human engagements, [Ivan ...] laid unfulfilled and dying”. Austin goes even further by pointing out that Ivan“comes to [the]  realization that all that he has made for himself in his forty years on earth [had] been completely fake: ‘…all that had then seemed like joys melted away and turned into something worthless and often vile’ (84). “. Thus, I would like to build upon Kennon's previous statement -from his previous article- and say that we do see two different versions of Ivan Ilyich. Now that we have been able to finish the entire story we see that Ivan is an apathetic, conformist up until he becomes sick. It is his sickness that awakens him and causes him to have an epiphany. He see’s the issue with materialism and apathy, in addition to other flaws in his society's structure. I that he becomes aware of this because unlike any other issue he has encountered - work issues or marriage issues, Ivan cannot do anything about his illness. Therefore he becomes more reliant on others and is disappointed to see that in the end “he had to live thus all alone on the brink of an abyss, with no one who understood or pitied him.”(Tolstoy Chapter 5).Seeing how he had been in the eyes of others allowed Ivan to experience how awful he had been. For this reason, Ivan truly did live a “simple and [...] ordinary,” life because he lived based on how others did and conformed , but also lived a “terrible” life because he simply wasted his life on things that in the end didn't matter (Tolstoy Chapter 2). I also believe that Pyotr is a reflection of Ivan and when we see him freak out about seeing Ivan’s body, the reader sees how Ivan would have behaved. This is interesting because unlike all the other upper-class Gerasim is fine with the idea of death and simply states that death is simply “god’s will. [and that w]e shall all come to it someday,”(Tolstoy Chapter 1).

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Boringslav Ivanovich

Judging a character based on two chapters of a novel can be very difficult. Analyzing Ivan Ilyich based on two chapters is very hard considering that the first chapter is mostly about other people’s -mainly Pyotr Ivanovich’s- perspective and the second chapter is only a brief synopsis of his life. I neither agree nor disagree with the opinions of my peers on the character of Ivan Ilyich, but would rather point out that the speculations being made are merely speculations. Kennon and Antonia argue about Ivan Ilyich’s abuse of power. Kennon states that Ivan “ ‘liked to treat such people, who were dependent on him, courteously, almost in a comradely fashion’  (49). Tolstoy makes sure to make the distinction between these two moral codes clear. The older, more mature Ilyich is able to juggle power and morality with both hands while the younger was impressionable and blindly followed his superiors. He then experiences a type of ethical regression “. Whiles Antonia believes “that [because] he “never misused this power of his; on the contrary, [and has …] tried to soften its expression” (Tolstoy 50). […] it is simply knowing that he has the capability to ruin someone’s life that does it for him”. I believe that though Kennon makes some great points about Tolstoy’s “view of the Russians in power shows how detrimental […] shifts in power can become.”, Kennon is simply making too big of a conclusion at the present for the reader to assume that Ivan Ilyich is a power-hungry, aristocrat (yet). Antonia on the other hand also makes a good point of pointing out Ivan Ilyich’s awareness of effects of his decisions. Therefore, Ivan has a sense of morality. Kennon stated that having “‘see[n] that [certain ..] acts were also committed by highly placed people and were not considered bad’ (Tolstoy 47). […] we see Ivan’s moral code is relative to the actions of the upper-class, and doesn’t take into account actual human suffering”. However, as Antonia had already stated Ivan Ilyich does take other’s into consideration and it is also clear that “At school he had done things which had formerly seemed to him very horrid and made him feel disgusted [ - he is showing remorse and a sense of morality here- ] with himself when he did them; but when later on he saw that such actions were done by people of good position and that they did not regard them as wrong, he was able not exactly to regard them as right, but to forget about them entirely or not be at all troubled at remembering them.”(Tolstoy Chapter 2). Hence, Ivan is aware that somethings has done are wrong and that he has an impact on others, but realizes that some of his mistakes are also made by others and that he should give himself some allowance for those mistakes. I do find Kennon’s quote on “Ivan’s moral code [being … ] relative to the actions of the upper-class  […as …] kind of awful” interesting because Kennon is either  arguing that the upper-class has an awful set of morals or that basing your morals on other people is wrong. If the statement that basing your morals on other people’s morals was in contention, I would say that all morals are based on other morals and that manners and ethics are learned through observing the behavior and opinions of others. If the statement that the upper-class has an awful set of morals is being contested, I would say that although this statement is generalizing, it would not be too far of the mark in this instant. In fact, this statement allows me to point out that as Maggly and Austin have pointed out, Ivan Ilyich has multiple faux relationship. We see that Pyotr Ivanovic’s lack of remorse and Praskovy Fyodorvna’s interest in getting money out of Ivan’s death shows how fake his relationships truly were. Therefore, If one were to state that Ivan basing his morals on his circle of high class friends was awful, I would not disagree with them. I would like to add onto this discussion by pointing out how boring Ivan Ilyich is: • Although he does have a high position job, he simply holds a faux position • Although he has moved multiple times, he takes similar posts and does the same thing repeatedly. • Although he is evidently not prepared for marriage, he gets married because his wife looks good, she is liked by his circle of friends, and he thinks she is at best alright so he marries her for the sake of doing so • Although his marriage is falling apart, he decides to focus on his lackluster job It seems that all we know about Ivan is that he does things because its “what he is supposed to do”. Ivan just like to play in his box and stays in his comfort zone.

[dilliciousdelapickle-blog]

Free write Reflection

Ever since I began to speak, words have been a tool for me express my ideas. In the third grade, I remember learning about independent and dependent clauses as well as subordinating and coordinating conjunctions so that I could transform my rudimentary sentences into paragraphs. Then in the seventh grade, I began to write essays through using a formula named SPES, an acronym for Statement, Proof, Explanation, and Significance. Using this formula, I could exhibit my ideas to others in an orderly fashion. In high school, writing was about creating and developing a good thesis and I believe that I am now fairly adequate at creating a thesis. Thus, I do not consider myself a novice writer because I have learned about grammar, word choice, and order; however, I would not call myself a veteran. I never truly focus on how my work is viewed by others ,when I write. I tend to write either what I believe my teacher is looking for or what I am thinking. Because of how I have approached my writing, I do not believe it would be a great or easy read for others. I believe that by changing my perspective to include the observations and oversight of others and If I were to write so that others could follow my writings in an easy manner, I can begin to write at a more advanced level.