I've had some experiences in my life that have really made me start questioning things. I now realize how powerful the mind can be, and this could be a positive or negative thing. For me, sadly, it isn't always so pleasant.
When I was ten years old, I somehow was able to make my lower stomach start hurting by just thinking about it. The more I became afraid of it, it would hurt worse. I also have this thing where if I think something or someone will make me sick, my mouth and throat will start hurting. Sometimes I would respond to static, touch, or sound and the top of my head would tingle.
On top of that, during the first quarter of 2006 I was associated with bipolar disorder after my first manic episode. When I was at the peak of my mania at the hospital, I would start hearing things that weren't there, and other people could easily tell I was in a delusional state. I know that this was the case, but isn't it strange how things can seem just as real as reality?
Other cases where we won't know if what we're experiencing is real or not is when we lucid dream or when we will experience virtual reality. Anyone would swear that it's real until they come out of it!
It seems that our reality is something that people perceive together, and that is what makes up our world. But, since we all believe this to be reality, is it still truly real? If we can believe things are our reality on our own (like all of the experiences I mentioned), how do we know what true reality is?
Friday, February 9, 2007
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Subconscious Actions
Read through chapter 4 (up to page 75). In this chapter Paul states:
"At the sound of the first droning of the shells we rush back, in one part of our being, a thousand years. By the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected. It is not conscious; it is far quicker, much more sure, less fallible, than consciousness. . . . It is this other, this second sight in us, that has thrown us to the ground and saved us, without our knowing how. . . . We march up, moody or good-tempered soldiers—we reach the zone where the front begins and become on the instant human animals."
Why would Paul characterize himself and his comrades as "human animals"?
Your task: Discuss the meaning of this quotation and the experiences the boys are enduring internally. In addition to your posting, comment on one other student's post."
Animals always live off of instinct. There isn't much thinking or contemplating going on by them, which means that what they do every day is exactly the same. They find shelter, eat, reproduce, and are always ready to respond to danger.
Paul characterized soldiers as human animals because they react to danger so quickly that they don't even consciously decide to duck and cover. Since animals are so used to doing the same thing, they start to automatically do things without thinking about them.
We have acquired these instincts in the form of subconscious actions,and these actions will develop if we continue to do something repetitive. For example, if it wasn't for the development of instinct, or subconscious actions, it would take me forever to type up this post since I would have to think consciously about every button I press!
This is quite fascinating because some of our subconscious actions have developed over lifetimes into instincts so we won't have to learn them all over again! This is what Paul is talking about, which means that humans must have been through the same type of life-threatening situations many times before.
One big point that Paul was trying to make is that war seems to be less than human, since killing is a far step back into our past instincts. Humans have moved on and have become intellectual beings, and it is like the soldiers are being thrown back in time to when humans needed to fight to live. However, it is not necessary that we have to fight other people in war in order to live! That's animal thinking!
Here are two quotes that I also found interesting in the book:
"I glance at my boots. They are big and clumsy, the breeches are tucked into them, and standing up one looks well-built and powerful in these great drainpipes. But when we go bathing and strip, suddenly we have slender legs again and slight shoulders. We are no longer soldiers but little more than boys; no one would believe that we could carry packs. It is a strange moment when we stand naked; then we become civilians, and almost feel ourselves to be so." Page 29.
"In himself man is essentially a beast, only he butters it over like a slice of bread with a little decorum. The army is based on that; one man must always have power over the other. The mischief is merely that each one has much too much power." Page 44.
"At the sound of the first droning of the shells we rush back, in one part of our being, a thousand years. By the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected. It is not conscious; it is far quicker, much more sure, less fallible, than consciousness. . . . It is this other, this second sight in us, that has thrown us to the ground and saved us, without our knowing how. . . . We march up, moody or good-tempered soldiers—we reach the zone where the front begins and become on the instant human animals."
Why would Paul characterize himself and his comrades as "human animals"?
Your task: Discuss the meaning of this quotation and the experiences the boys are enduring internally. In addition to your posting, comment on one other student's post."
Animals always live off of instinct. There isn't much thinking or contemplating going on by them, which means that what they do every day is exactly the same. They find shelter, eat, reproduce, and are always ready to respond to danger.
Paul characterized soldiers as human animals because they react to danger so quickly that they don't even consciously decide to duck and cover. Since animals are so used to doing the same thing, they start to automatically do things without thinking about them.
We have acquired these instincts in the form of subconscious actions,and these actions will develop if we continue to do something repetitive. For example, if it wasn't for the development of instinct, or subconscious actions, it would take me forever to type up this post since I would have to think consciously about every button I press!
This is quite fascinating because some of our subconscious actions have developed over lifetimes into instincts so we won't have to learn them all over again! This is what Paul is talking about, which means that humans must have been through the same type of life-threatening situations many times before.
One big point that Paul was trying to make is that war seems to be less than human, since killing is a far step back into our past instincts. Humans have moved on and have become intellectual beings, and it is like the soldiers are being thrown back in time to when humans needed to fight to live. However, it is not necessary that we have to fight other people in war in order to live! That's animal thinking!
Here are two quotes that I also found interesting in the book:
"I glance at my boots. They are big and clumsy, the breeches are tucked into them, and standing up one looks well-built and powerful in these great drainpipes. But when we go bathing and strip, suddenly we have slender legs again and slight shoulders. We are no longer soldiers but little more than boys; no one would believe that we could carry packs. It is a strange moment when we stand naked; then we become civilians, and almost feel ourselves to be so." Page 29.
"In himself man is essentially a beast, only he butters it over like a slice of bread with a little decorum. The army is based on that; one man must always have power over the other. The mischief is merely that each one has much too much power." Page 44.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Response to Napolean and the French Revolution
After Napoleon abdicates in 1814, the revolution is officially over, and Louis XVIII is crowned King of France. Can you believe it? The monarchy returns!!! In light of our investigation of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era, evaluate the legacy of the French Revolution. Do you believe it was a success or a failure? Your response should be atleast 150 words.
Before Napolean, things seemed to progress positively for the third estate people of france. They were able to fight the monarchy and attain rights of equality. But, when it came to Napolean, it didn't progress completely negatively, but it came out a different way.
Napolean was a selfish man. He was like everyone else, so he had the same basic concerns as the majority population. Even though he did fight for the rights of his people, he had special beliefs and preferences as well. He made France just the way he wanted to see it. Hence, he did support equality under law, religious rights, ethnic respect, cheap food, paved roads, and others, but he also allowed beating wives, denied equal women's rights, and didn't support employees.
However, he did present some new ideas that did support the people further than the earlier part of the french revolution, and thats why I would say that he made a step further for france. But, I don't think he preserved the legacy of the French Revolution in its fullest. He is the equivalent of a tyrant, but a true tyrant offers no new positive ideas, which shows how Napolean isn't utterly a tyrant. He was a good man, but he was quite selfish and his strange beliefs and influences made it so we can't consider him a hero.
Before Napolean, things seemed to progress positively for the third estate people of france. They were able to fight the monarchy and attain rights of equality. But, when it came to Napolean, it didn't progress completely negatively, but it came out a different way.
Napolean was a selfish man. He was like everyone else, so he had the same basic concerns as the majority population. Even though he did fight for the rights of his people, he had special beliefs and preferences as well. He made France just the way he wanted to see it. Hence, he did support equality under law, religious rights, ethnic respect, cheap food, paved roads, and others, but he also allowed beating wives, denied equal women's rights, and didn't support employees.
However, he did present some new ideas that did support the people further than the earlier part of the french revolution, and thats why I would say that he made a step further for france. But, I don't think he preserved the legacy of the French Revolution in its fullest. He is the equivalent of a tyrant, but a true tyrant offers no new positive ideas, which shows how Napolean isn't utterly a tyrant. He was a good man, but he was quite selfish and his strange beliefs and influences made it so we can't consider him a hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
