Dialectic Journal #3 for Night, by Elie Wiesel
"'Throw out all the dead! All corpses outside!' The living rejoiced. The would be more room. Volunteers set to work. They felt those who were still crouching. 'Here's one! Take him!' They undressed him, the survivors avidly sharing out his clothes then two 'gravediggers' took him, one by the head and one by the feet, and threw him out of the wagon like a sack of flour."
I don't believe it! This is even worse than Monty Python's Holy Grail! There's one scene in that movie when everyone brings out the people who died overnight, and then there was a guy who didn't want to let his father go. But in this book, people were rejoicing that the dead were being thrown out of the train! They seriously didn't have anything, not even space to move or air to breathe! They were so deprived of everything that they were happy people were dying, because it means more space and more clothing to warm up from the snow. And they were on that train for three days! In the end, out of 100 people on Wiesel's wagon, only twelve survived. I don't believe that the SS can let people die so easily and not even show any compassion. This is as dark as it gets. But if we never contemplate what happened during the Holocaust, we wouldn't ever care about the duality of the world.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
An Observation Everyone Should Make.
Dialectic Journal #2 for Night, by Elie Wiesel
"Yes, man is very stong, greater than God. When You were decieved by Adam and Eve, You drove them out of Paradise. When Noah's generation displeased You, You brought down the Flood. When Sodom no longer found favor in Your eyes, You made the sky rain down fire and sulphur. But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do? They pray before You! They praise Your name!"
Through the old Testament, God can seem even more sinister than man (which is why Wiesel must have said that man was greater). And then, during World War Two, there is nothing that the Jews even did wrong! Even if there is such thing as the Justice of God, then why is the "punishment" on the Jews instead of the Nazis? Something here isn't right. Is it true that God is love? If he is, then he can't be fear as well! You cant be good AND evil! The Jews are praising God while all of these things are happening! If I believed that God was doing this to the Jews, I would find no reason to believe in him. WWII looks like Hell on Earth, and Elie Wiesel's point here is a very strong and important one. I believe that everyone should seek the answer to this statement.
"Yes, man is very stong, greater than God. When You were decieved by Adam and Eve, You drove them out of Paradise. When Noah's generation displeased You, You brought down the Flood. When Sodom no longer found favor in Your eyes, You made the sky rain down fire and sulphur. But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do? They pray before You! They praise Your name!"
Through the old Testament, God can seem even more sinister than man (which is why Wiesel must have said that man was greater). And then, during World War Two, there is nothing that the Jews even did wrong! Even if there is such thing as the Justice of God, then why is the "punishment" on the Jews instead of the Nazis? Something here isn't right. Is it true that God is love? If he is, then he can't be fear as well! You cant be good AND evil! The Jews are praising God while all of these things are happening! If I believed that God was doing this to the Jews, I would find no reason to believe in him. WWII looks like Hell on Earth, and Elie Wiesel's point here is a very strong and important one. I believe that everyone should seek the answer to this statement.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Is Punishment Love?
Dialectic Journal #1 for Night, by Elie Wiesel
"Some talked of God, of his mysterious ways, of the sins of the Jewish people, and of their future deliverance. But I had ceased to pray. How I sympathized with Job! I did not deny God's existence, but I doubted his absolute justice.
Akiba Drumer said: 'God is testing us. He wants to find out whether we can dominate our base instincts and kill the Satan within us. We have no right to despair. And if he punishes us relentlessly, it's a sign that He loves us all the more.'"
Concentration camps would seriously force you to think through your religious belief systems. Babies being thrown into fire, daily beatings, and total manipulation. To them, it's God saying, "I'll beat the hell out of you, but I love you more than you think." Isn't that a little twisted? Seeing God as the ruler of the universe must mean that Satan is God the Father as well. So much punishment and pain can be experienced in this world, and it makes you wonder how involved God really is in the world. This book, if taken from the stance of Wiesel and his fellow Jews, makes you not only afraid of the world, but afraid of God. It is hard for them to blame God for being so ruthless, but they can't deny that God is involved in it. It is not pleasant at all for me to imagine living and thinking like they did at the time of the Holocaust.
"Some talked of God, of his mysterious ways, of the sins of the Jewish people, and of their future deliverance. But I had ceased to pray. How I sympathized with Job! I did not deny God's existence, but I doubted his absolute justice.
Akiba Drumer said: 'God is testing us. He wants to find out whether we can dominate our base instincts and kill the Satan within us. We have no right to despair. And if he punishes us relentlessly, it's a sign that He loves us all the more.'"
Concentration camps would seriously force you to think through your religious belief systems. Babies being thrown into fire, daily beatings, and total manipulation. To them, it's God saying, "I'll beat the hell out of you, but I love you more than you think." Isn't that a little twisted? Seeing God as the ruler of the universe must mean that Satan is God the Father as well. So much punishment and pain can be experienced in this world, and it makes you wonder how involved God really is in the world. This book, if taken from the stance of Wiesel and his fellow Jews, makes you not only afraid of the world, but afraid of God. It is hard for them to blame God for being so ruthless, but they can't deny that God is involved in it. It is not pleasant at all for me to imagine living and thinking like they did at the time of the Holocaust.
Perils of Indifference
"What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?"
I agree with Wiesel when he questions if indifference should be seen as a virtue, since there is no situation when it is helpful. However, I don't think that is sinful, since making decisions should be only for the individual. No one is called to do anything, but when someone acts with indifference, they must know that they made a mistake if they feel guilty. It is not an evil thing to do, but one might feel that way if they they take this action (I mean, inaction). Condemnation towards those who act indifferently is not right to do either; anger and hate is basically the same thing as feeling guilty anyway. It is best if these emotions are never experienced because they are never positive and never feel good in the long run. Indifference is not positive, but should not be looked on as negative because this will provoke condemnation towards those who act indifferently.
I agree with Wiesel when he questions if indifference should be seen as a virtue, since there is no situation when it is helpful. However, I don't think that is sinful, since making decisions should be only for the individual. No one is called to do anything, but when someone acts with indifference, they must know that they made a mistake if they feel guilty. It is not an evil thing to do, but one might feel that way if they they take this action (I mean, inaction). Condemnation towards those who act indifferently is not right to do either; anger and hate is basically the same thing as feeling guilty anyway. It is best if these emotions are never experienced because they are never positive and never feel good in the long run. Indifference is not positive, but should not be looked on as negative because this will provoke condemnation towards those who act indifferently.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Is the Past Good or Bad for Us?
This post is a response to Nelson's comment on focusing on the past:
"Today, during class we had a class discussion about All Quiet on the Western Front and war in general. We talked about different aspects of war, we talked about WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, and wars in general. After the discussion I came to the computer to write my reflection (about a subject that I already forgot) and Lucien told me that he was pretty annoyed about the fact that everytime we talk about war it goes back to past crimes and leaders. He told me that he was pretty annoyed about us not talking about wars NOW; it always goes back to Alexander, it always goes back to Hitler; WWI. Me, I believe he is right in the sense that war is NOT a thing of the past. War is currently waged in the Middle East, and in Africa, but for some reason we talk about Hitler and not Bush (or the US senate for that matter). We talk about the Holocaust and not Darfur, and even though the Holocaust was bigger, Darfur is present. And even though history is important; I believe that the present is more so."
In terms of decisions made in the world, we seem to be more successful when we refer to the past to make future decisions. We cannot understand how to make political decisions in the present if we know nothing about the past and have no experience in the matter. If we don't pay attention to the past, we will never make smart decisions for the present and future. It's like trying to walk a catwalk for the first time without a rope. You won't make it! Making decisions based off knowledge from past experiences is also like maturity. We mature because we stop doing things or thinking certain ways when we were immature. If we don't look at the past, then we're babies forever.
One thing about the past that is actually bad is how we feel about things that happen. The emotions, if we hold onto them, will stay with us forever. Our stress and worry about the past affects our present and future life, even though there is no reason to hold on to the bad memories since it's not happening! I think the problem we're having with the issues today and why they're repeating comes from this fact. The people of the world hold on to memories that make them afraid of the present and future instead of looking at the memories (which cannot affect us because they're not happening) and making intellectual goals by assessing the mistakes.
"Today, during class we had a class discussion about All Quiet on the Western Front and war in general. We talked about different aspects of war, we talked about WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, and wars in general. After the discussion I came to the computer to write my reflection (about a subject that I already forgot) and Lucien told me that he was pretty annoyed about the fact that everytime we talk about war it goes back to past crimes and leaders. He told me that he was pretty annoyed about us not talking about wars NOW; it always goes back to Alexander, it always goes back to Hitler; WWI. Me, I believe he is right in the sense that war is NOT a thing of the past. War is currently waged in the Middle East, and in Africa, but for some reason we talk about Hitler and not Bush (or the US senate for that matter). We talk about the Holocaust and not Darfur, and even though the Holocaust was bigger, Darfur is present. And even though history is important; I believe that the present is more so."
In terms of decisions made in the world, we seem to be more successful when we refer to the past to make future decisions. We cannot understand how to make political decisions in the present if we know nothing about the past and have no experience in the matter. If we don't pay attention to the past, we will never make smart decisions for the present and future. It's like trying to walk a catwalk for the first time without a rope. You won't make it! Making decisions based off knowledge from past experiences is also like maturity. We mature because we stop doing things or thinking certain ways when we were immature. If we don't look at the past, then we're babies forever.
One thing about the past that is actually bad is how we feel about things that happen. The emotions, if we hold onto them, will stay with us forever. Our stress and worry about the past affects our present and future life, even though there is no reason to hold on to the bad memories since it's not happening! I think the problem we're having with the issues today and why they're repeating comes from this fact. The people of the world hold on to memories that make them afraid of the present and future instead of looking at the memories (which cannot affect us because they're not happening) and making intellectual goals by assessing the mistakes.
Friday, February 23, 2007
AQOTWF End Reflection
1. What is ironic, or dramatically unexpected about the novel's ending?
I thought he wasn't going to die. I thought he was going to have to live with all the pain like many people do. However, he died when it was all quiet on the western front! This shows how Remarque really feels about his life. He knows that he's not going to kill himself (life is too valuable) but he wouldn't mind to die, since he won't have the pain and memories anymore. But, it is very ironic that he would die at a time when the war became a lot less intense. He was a soldier, that made it through the heat of war virtually untouched, and ends up dying when the war is calm.
2. What images of the novel are lingering in your mind? Explain why these images made a lasting impression on you.
Many of his thoughts, feelings and images really affected me. I liked his human animal analogy, and also when he noticed that he wouldn't hesitate to kill his father if he was on the opposing side - war is that powerful! Some of the images and memories I liked were when he had to end a French soldier's life and decided to send money to his family (if he would live) and also when a German soldier became paranoid and started banging his head on the wall.
3. Do you think Paul can claim to speak for an entire "lost generation" when he speaks of the effects of war? In Paul's opinion war ruins those who survive as must as those who die. Do you think his fellow soldiers felt the same way about war?
Thanks for Remarque, we get to see the true side of war for a soldier. It definitely portrays the overall feeling of the war for the "lost generation." Remarque stresses that it's actually worse to live than die. However, Paul's experience was actually less intense than other. He said enough with his happy death. For other soldiers, their experience might have been twice as painful and fearful.
I thought he wasn't going to die. I thought he was going to have to live with all the pain like many people do. However, he died when it was all quiet on the western front! This shows how Remarque really feels about his life. He knows that he's not going to kill himself (life is too valuable) but he wouldn't mind to die, since he won't have the pain and memories anymore. But, it is very ironic that he would die at a time when the war became a lot less intense. He was a soldier, that made it through the heat of war virtually untouched, and ends up dying when the war is calm.
2. What images of the novel are lingering in your mind? Explain why these images made a lasting impression on you.
Many of his thoughts, feelings and images really affected me. I liked his human animal analogy, and also when he noticed that he wouldn't hesitate to kill his father if he was on the opposing side - war is that powerful! Some of the images and memories I liked were when he had to end a French soldier's life and decided to send money to his family (if he would live) and also when a German soldier became paranoid and started banging his head on the wall.
3. Do you think Paul can claim to speak for an entire "lost generation" when he speaks of the effects of war? In Paul's opinion war ruins those who survive as must as those who die. Do you think his fellow soldiers felt the same way about war?
Thanks for Remarque, we get to see the true side of war for a soldier. It definitely portrays the overall feeling of the war for the "lost generation." Remarque stresses that it's actually worse to live than die. However, Paul's experience was actually less intense than other. He said enough with his happy death. For other soldiers, their experience might have been twice as painful and fearful.
The Seminar
I thought the blog was very interesting because we brought up some controversial questions.
I liked that we were able to identify leader's and soldier's involvement, contribution, and opinion on the war. The leaders seemed to build up opposing forces and attack once a conflict rises to the surface. However, the soldiers were less violent than the leaders since they just wanted to serve the country. They've been treated like pawn pieces in a chess game, except now the pawn pieces aren't happy with who they're forced to take down. The soldiers wanted a truce whenever possible, and that's why the Christmas Truce inevitably happened.
Another interesting subject we focused on was deciding if countries (like America) should run over and "help" other countries with their problems. We came up with two different answers. One was that we should help anyone in the world because it is the right and moral thing to do. However, we also realized that sometimes people don't want help from anyone, even though that help is ideal. The other opinion was that, since people might not want help, we should make sure we as a country are completely happy. If we're not, we get mixed ideas of what decisions benefit someone and which one's don't. So until we perfect our lives, there's no point in trying to help someone that will be pissed if you help them.
I liked that we were able to identify leader's and soldier's involvement, contribution, and opinion on the war. The leaders seemed to build up opposing forces and attack once a conflict rises to the surface. However, the soldiers were less violent than the leaders since they just wanted to serve the country. They've been treated like pawn pieces in a chess game, except now the pawn pieces aren't happy with who they're forced to take down. The soldiers wanted a truce whenever possible, and that's why the Christmas Truce inevitably happened.
Another interesting subject we focused on was deciding if countries (like America) should run over and "help" other countries with their problems. We came up with two different answers. One was that we should help anyone in the world because it is the right and moral thing to do. However, we also realized that sometimes people don't want help from anyone, even though that help is ideal. The other opinion was that, since people might not want help, we should make sure we as a country are completely happy. If we're not, we get mixed ideas of what decisions benefit someone and which one's don't. So until we perfect our lives, there's no point in trying to help someone that will be pissed if you help them.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
I Love the Last Paragraph!
It's kinda funny, but I feel relieved too:
"He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come."
This is at the very end of the book, after all of Paul's horrible experiences. He just died...
I feel the same struggle as Paul did in the book through my own experiences with the bipolar disorder. I think back about all the pain I went through or all the things that I thought happened, and it's not very pleasant. However, since it's a really cloudy past anyways, it's easier for me to forget it. I haven't dismissed it completely yet, but I'm happy it's over with. That's how I think about the situation with Paul - he had so many negative experiences and memories over the time at war, and he wanted to dismiss all of it but couldn't. He tried to live with it, but death seemed to be the only way to end the pain. I'm quite lucky that I have been able to let go of my memories, but I also know that they were nowhere as intense as Paul's. That's why I react to the book so much. Some of my neighborhood friend's fathers were in the Vietnam War, and life doesn't look so great for them. This might sound weird, but I'm happy for Paul.
"He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come."
This is at the very end of the book, after all of Paul's horrible experiences. He just died...
I feel the same struggle as Paul did in the book through my own experiences with the bipolar disorder. I think back about all the pain I went through or all the things that I thought happened, and it's not very pleasant. However, since it's a really cloudy past anyways, it's easier for me to forget it. I haven't dismissed it completely yet, but I'm happy it's over with. That's how I think about the situation with Paul - he had so many negative experiences and memories over the time at war, and he wanted to dismiss all of it but couldn't. He tried to live with it, but death seemed to be the only way to end the pain. I'm quite lucky that I have been able to let go of my memories, but I also know that they were nowhere as intense as Paul's. That's why I react to the book so much. Some of my neighborhood friend's fathers were in the Vietnam War, and life doesn't look so great for them. This might sound weird, but I'm happy for Paul.
God-Only-Knows-What-Devils!
Here's one of my favorite quotes from the middle of the book:
"The blast of hand-grenades impinges powerfully on our arms and legs; crouching like cats we run on, overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils; this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance. If your own father came over with them you would not hesitate to fling a bomb at him."
This happened in the middle of the book, before he's all alone. It shows how much war changes someone.
At this point in war, it doesn't even look like hatred for the other side. Of course, fathers aren't usually hated, so if your father happened to be out there in the field, you wouldn't stop to think about who you're about to kill? It isn't at all about hatred , it just became a game of survival. These were sane men, just like anyone else, and they've been forced to become what no one wants to be. When I'm reading this book, I can't help but get caught up in all the pain that Paul and his friends have to go through. Once you're there, it is no turning back. It's really hard for war veterans to forget things like this. I get all these negative emotions from reading the book, and I can't imagine what it would be like to actually be there.
"The blast of hand-grenades impinges powerfully on our arms and legs; crouching like cats we run on, overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils; this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance. If your own father came over with them you would not hesitate to fling a bomb at him."
This happened in the middle of the book, before he's all alone. It shows how much war changes someone.
At this point in war, it doesn't even look like hatred for the other side. Of course, fathers aren't usually hated, so if your father happened to be out there in the field, you wouldn't stop to think about who you're about to kill? It isn't at all about hatred , it just became a game of survival. These were sane men, just like anyone else, and they've been forced to become what no one wants to be. When I'm reading this book, I can't help but get caught up in all the pain that Paul and his friends have to go through. Once you're there, it is no turning back. It's really hard for war veterans to forget things like this. I get all these negative emotions from reading the book, and I can't imagine what it would be like to actually be there.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Burtsonian Philosophy
Burtsonian philosophy tries to demonstrate that duality is not as effective, reasonable, and loving as unity. Duality, as we see this world, is not our true nature. As Thomas Hobbes states that we, by nature in this world, are all selfish and greedy. This is true, since our universe is seen through separation of objects, which creates physical space. In world nature, every living species needs to fend for itself and oppose something else. Once humans were able to conquer all other species, it no longer became a game of survival. We still, of course, needed food and shelter, but now we all want physical possessions and money as well.
Everyone, in my philosophy, deserves the same amount of respect, and this respect should be given to everyone by everyone. Everyone should have the right to live, which means there will be no situations where a life should be taken away by law. Everyone will be given enough food to live as healthy as possible. Everyone will have the opportunity to own a house and live in privacy. Also, everyone will have access to any information they need that people would produce and share publicly.
My philosophy runs off of the belief that everyone has a say in the government; no matter what their ethnicity is, sexual orientation, or even if they’re prisoners. However, since not everyone knows what’s best for the people as a whole, there will be elected representatives (and anyone could take this position) that will make decisions for the people. Any laws presented by our leader and his/her informers can only be accepted if the majority population agrees. Votes are counted by population instead of by states, so everyone’s voice overall will be heard. Anyone can choose or choose not to vote. People, however, like to collaborate because they can work better together and are able to live and get what they need if it is a joint effort. Interdependence offers so much more opportunities to everyone.
Here is my philosophy that I made for the "Create Your Own Philosophy" extra-credit assignment:
There is still a problem in society because of the way people act and think, and mere laws can’t change these. It seems that everyone has some sort of guilt and fear that can never get rid of, because if it was truly gone, everyone would obviously be much happier and would also love everyone more. The problem is that people constantly try to get rid of this guilt by throwing it on others and blaming them at any possible time for things they did. Now, we have all made mistakes, and no one is perfect in anyone’s eyes. So, why continue the condemnation? Some people either always blame or always blame themselves, and this is what leads to murder, rape, suicide, etc.
This brings to light the solution. What is really the meaning of life? To reach a state of complete happiness, nirvana, revelation, etc. We are all really the same mind, and we need to accept that to reach the perfect state. People must constantly forgive everything and stop being so critical of what they see around them. Whenever we condemn others, we are still condemning ourselves subconsciously since we are still the same mind. Living off fear will never help people realize the meaning of life and what they should do with it. It is up to the people to make the correct decisions that will benefit them as well as everyone else they interact with. Forgiveness will essentially solve all these problems.
Everyone, in my philosophy, deserves the same amount of respect, and this respect should be given to everyone by everyone. Everyone should have the right to live, which means there will be no situations where a life should be taken away by law. Everyone will be given enough food to live as healthy as possible. Everyone will have the opportunity to own a house and live in privacy. Also, everyone will have access to any information they need that people would produce and share publicly.
My philosophy runs off of the belief that everyone has a say in the government; no matter what their ethnicity is, sexual orientation, or even if they’re prisoners. However, since not everyone knows what’s best for the people as a whole, there will be elected representatives (and anyone could take this position) that will make decisions for the people. Any laws presented by our leader and his/her informers can only be accepted if the majority population agrees. Votes are counted by population instead of by states, so everyone’s voice overall will be heard. Anyone can choose or choose not to vote. People, however, like to collaborate because they can work better together and are able to live and get what they need if it is a joint effort. Interdependence offers so much more opportunities to everyone.
Here is my philosophy that I made for the "Create Your Own Philosophy" extra-credit assignment:
There is still a problem in society because of the way people act and think, and mere laws can’t change these. It seems that everyone has some sort of guilt and fear that can never get rid of, because if it was truly gone, everyone would obviously be much happier and would also love everyone more. The problem is that people constantly try to get rid of this guilt by throwing it on others and blaming them at any possible time for things they did. Now, we have all made mistakes, and no one is perfect in anyone’s eyes. So, why continue the condemnation? Some people either always blame or always blame themselves, and this is what leads to murder, rape, suicide, etc.
This brings to light the solution. What is really the meaning of life? To reach a state of complete happiness, nirvana, revelation, etc. We are all really the same mind, and we need to accept that to reach the perfect state. People must constantly forgive everything and stop being so critical of what they see around them. Whenever we condemn others, we are still condemning ourselves subconsciously since we are still the same mind. Living off fear will never help people realize the meaning of life and what they should do with it. It is up to the people to make the correct decisions that will benefit them as well as everyone else they interact with. Forgiveness will essentially solve all these problems.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Less than Unnatural
Read through chapter 7 for Monday. Now let's be a little creative!!! Write a minimum of a ten line monologue to perform in drama class on Monday. Write and in turn deliver the monologue (speech) as if you were a character in All Quiet on the Western Front. Be passionate, be thoughtful, be CREATIVE.
A monologue is a speech that one actor delivers in a play. Before you get started, consider these questions!!!
WHERE IS THIS PERSON SPEAKING?
WHO IS LISTENING?
WHAT IS THE MAIN THING THEY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT?
I found a soldier on the ground next to my bed in the barracks. He is completely still. He has a journal between the fingers in his right hand, and I decided to open it to his last entry. The words are faded from teardrops. I decide to read what it says:
"How can this be? I can feel it deep inside, and I know nothing is right. So much fear, so much dis-ease. When I was home, I thought I had everything wrong. Service sounded like the right the to do. But now, I'm even more disconnected, and my simplest needs are not being fulfilled. There's no love, all pain. I'll never wake from this nightmare that will haunt me for the rest of my days. People screaming with their limbs torn apart. I used to not believe in hell, but it now feels too real to dismiss. Animals of the same species don't kill each other, so why should use humans be doing this for power? I don't want to be right, I just want to be happy. Is there really any love in the world? I can't take it anymore. I am completely intact, but my mind is beyond repair. This intensiveness will never be healed. I have lost my chance to truly understand the purpose of life."
A monologue is a speech that one actor delivers in a play. Before you get started, consider these questions!!!
WHERE IS THIS PERSON SPEAKING?
WHO IS LISTENING?
WHAT IS THE MAIN THING THEY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT?
I found a soldier on the ground next to my bed in the barracks. He is completely still. He has a journal between the fingers in his right hand, and I decided to open it to his last entry. The words are faded from teardrops. I decide to read what it says:
"How can this be? I can feel it deep inside, and I know nothing is right. So much fear, so much dis-ease. When I was home, I thought I had everything wrong. Service sounded like the right the to do. But now, I'm even more disconnected, and my simplest needs are not being fulfilled. There's no love, all pain. I'll never wake from this nightmare that will haunt me for the rest of my days. People screaming with their limbs torn apart. I used to not believe in hell, but it now feels too real to dismiss. Animals of the same species don't kill each other, so why should use humans be doing this for power? I don't want to be right, I just want to be happy. Is there really any love in the world? I can't take it anymore. I am completely intact, but my mind is beyond repair. This intensiveness will never be healed. I have lost my chance to truly understand the purpose of life."
Friday, February 9, 2007
What is Reality?
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?
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?
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)
