And So He Dies

Hello.

Don’t have much time today, but we are still reading Plato’s Apology, though this was the last section.

The part that I selected today started on page 67, section b, though it ends on the next page. It goes like this: “the difficulty is not so much to escape death; the real difficulty is to escape from wickedness, which is far more fleet of foot…I [Socrates], the slow old man, have been overtaken by the slower of the two, but my accusers, who are clever and quick, have been overtaken by the faster: by iniquity. When I leave this court, I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convinced by Truth herself of depravity and injustice. And they accept their sentence even as I accept mine.”

I thought that this was a really interesting quote because Socrates talks of how he has been overcome by death, but his accusers have been overcome by injustice. He talks of himself as the slow old man who is caught only by the slower. I also thought that it conveyed fairly well the tenor of the last section of The Apology. He is not afraid, he has made that quite clear, but there is something else behind his words nonetheless. I found this last part especially sad, with its last line that conveys such heaviness even through its light tone, “Well, now it is time to be off, I to die and you to live; but which of us has the happier prospect is unknown to anyone but God.”

Goodbye.

Accusations Abound

Hello.

We are still reading the Apology, by Plato, and the more I read, the more I think that Socrates truly is one of the wisest men to ever walk the earth, perhaps THE wisest. He talks about how there is no equal to him in page 57, Starting with the sentence that begins on the top line with “I”, going all the way down to the end of the paragraph.

The quote that really struck me from this part of the Apology that we read was on page 56, section e. “My very good friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest and most famous in the world for it’s wisdom and strength. Are you not ashamed that you give you attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul.”

First, my explanation. So Socrates is saying, “You, my friend, are part of this really wonderful city of learning, a city that is FAMOUS for the knowledge here, and yet, you spend all of your time trying to make money and no time trying to find the Truth (capital “T” Truth).”

I thought that this was really important because it was like an accusation to the prosecution. It says that you are too concerned with “real” matters, physical things, and not concerned enough about the things that Socrates believes truly matter. I think that he is also subliminally accusing them of being in this wonderful city, where everything is devoted to wisdom and strength, and yet here you stand, accusing me for the very thing that makes this city so special.

This is such a wonderful piece of text!

Goodbye.

The Truth About Wisdom (And Ignorance)

Hello.

We are now reading a part of “The Apology” by Plato. In this piece, Socrates tries to convince the jury that he is innocent, and, moreover, that all of the claims against him are utterly false.

The line that struck me most, though it has little to do with the trial that we plan to host, was on page 44, section 21d. Here, Socrates says, “It is only too likely that neither of us have any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something that he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance.” First, allow me to explain what I think Socrates means by this.

He is talking about a man that he interviewed in his quest to find other men wiser than he in Athens, or, for that matter, in the whole world. I too am coming to think that there are none. The man that he interviewed was a politician, I believe. Socrates claims that neither of them have any real knowledge, for what is the knowledge of men compared to the immortal knowledge of the gods? But the man, the politician, BELIVED that he knew far more than he did, whereas Socrates knows that he knows nothing.

This is what I have learned from this, and what I have written in all caps in the margin: TRUE WISDOM IS THE AKNOWLDGEMENT OF IGNORANCE. I’m sure that’s a quote from somewhere, I can't be the one that thought of that first. I think what this means is that the second that you realize that you really do know nothing, you have learned the most important piece of knowledge: there is more to know. Socrates believes that neither the men who know little but think they know much, or those that know much but think they know little are truly wise. And worse, I think he believes, are those who believe they know all and in reality know nothing.

What does this have to do with the trial? Nothing. Just something interesting I learned along the way.

Goodbye.

The Speach of Pericles (Funeral Oration and Values of Athens)

Hello.

We are now reading a part of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, the section, for those of you who know it, called Pericles’ Funeral Oration. I think that this is a really wonderful speech because it talks a lot about Athens, the values they hold and what it means to be truly brave.

I will begin with the Athenian values. I believe they are:
• Courage/bravery/manliness
• Freedom
• Tradition/following your father
• Individuality (especially in government)
• Equality/fairness (also in government)
• “Love of things of the mind”
• Kindness to others
• General scruples

I think of these, the most important to the people, and certainly to Pericles, are the ones pertaining to their government, which they took great pride in, and the treatment of others. Several times he mentions the importance of a government that is equal to all of its people, be they rich or poor. Also, he talks about how unique such a government is, one of the quotes that stood out to me was the following from page 148, section 41, lines 13 and 14, “Future ages will wonder at us, as the present age wonders now.”

This will be a really important issue in the trial of Socrates that we are planning to put on because this society was a democracy where freedom reined supreme. This should include freedom of speech…yet Socrates was killed for expressing his own opinion and teaching it to the youth of Athens. If this society that Pericles praises so much were truly free, Socrates would not even receive a reprimand for his teachings.

Goodbye!

The Patriot Act, What it Means for YOU

Hello.

The topic that I have read about for this “Jigsaw Activity” is on the issue of censorship (rather obviously). This censorship, however, is more centered around 9/11 and terrorism related omissions. More specifically, The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an act that was passed to allow the government to look at the books that you buy, check out from the library or look for while you are at a public library. This was implemented, they say, because one of the suspected terrorists of the 9/11 crisis did research in a public library. If this was a debate topic, I would suggest that the resolution be as follows: The Patriot Act goes directly against our First Amendment rights.

This is really important. Think about it this way, the government could go back and looking through records of any book that you ever checked out or bought. While you are in a public library, a free space to use a computer, the government can legally ask the library for records of everything that you did while you were there. Now, most of you probably never pick up a book unless directly asked (and even then…), but you DO use the computer and you wouldn’t want the government looking through your history and accusing you of terrorism based on those accounts. Because of recent changes in the legislation, the FBI can now look at these files without a reason (if they have one) and they certainly don’t have to give a reason to the library staff. I have a right to what I read. That is NONE of the government’s business. This is a direct breach of our privacy and shouldn’t even be legal.

The reasons against this, I have given above, but to recap, this is a violation of our privacy; we have a right to do whatever we want. The government should have very good reasons and evidence before going into this stuff. As Nancy Chang put it, “The act grants the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers.”

On the other hand, we have John Ashcroft, ex-attorney general, who advocated for The Patriot Act, perhaps because he was the one who wrote it. He says that the government doesn’t care what types of books we read and that there are only 11,000 FBI agents in the USA and they are not going to waste their time looking over our shoulders at the books we read. The administration, he says, believes in the First Amendment.

Now, that might be true, but I don’t believe what he said about the FBI. Why have a Patriot Act if they really don’t care what we are buying? Why even allow that option if they honestly don’t care? Therefore, I think that he must be lying. What other purpose would the act serve?

Goodbye.

We Need The Press

Hello.

We are doing more on censorship, but this is in a different area, one I am not going to support: censorship of the press. I believe that there are some things that need to be censored (see the last post I wrote), but I think that the American people have a right to know what is happening in the world, we can’t and the government can’t keep what is happening from the people. The piece I read agreed with this position.

The first thing that this piece brings to my attention is a case involving a man named Maher Hawash, who was (and still is, perhaps) in jail for a reason that was not explained to him. He had been “caught” by ex-attorney general, John Ashcroft who had been proven in the past to detain these people without reason as HE (not a jury) suspects them of terrorism. These people were generally detained without warning or reason.

The second thing was the case of a man named Jose Padilla, who, like Mr. Hawash, was kept without reason and without a trial. He was unable to see a lawyer or his family and has not been told why he was detained in the first place. And, this is the worst part, he is not the only one. This has happened to lots of people and the government has been trying to keep it under a “blanket of secrecy”.

And last, it is the press’ job to protect our rights and keep us informed. Without them, the American public would be unable to make informed decisions. If they don’t know what’s happening, they can’t do things like vote and our rights would crumble, without anyone knowing anything about it.

Even though I advocated censorship in the last piece that I wrote, I don’t believe in all censorship. I don’t believe that you should be able to show porn on a family channel on Saturday mornings. I do, however, believe that things like the press (and books) should not be censored. We need to know what’s going on. If the government doesn’t want us to know something, we should be worried about what they are trying to hide as they probably shouldn’t be doing it.

Goodbye.

You Beleive in Censorship Too

Hello.

Censorship is a really interesting issue, because the more I read about it and the more that I learn about how it effects our lives, the more I think that we do really need some form of censorship. I know, you are permitted to gasp, but let me ask you this, and this is a direct quote from Jonah Goldberg, “Do you think that ABC should be allowed to run triple-X porn on Saturday morning?”

No? I thought not. Well, and this is also Jonah Goldberg’s point, then you believe in censorship as well. If you believe that you shouldn’t be able to distribute the work of someone else, their book, their music, their characters, then you also believe in copyright laws, which is a form of censorship.

Now, the part that gets tricky is hate speech. Do you believe that members of the Ku Klux Klan should be aloud to spout white supremacy speeches? I personally don’t think so, but if you limit them, you are really starting to put a lid on what people can and cannot say. You are really cutting down on the American idea of everybody can say whatever they want.

The last point I would like to make, and borrow again from Goldberg, is that in modern times, censorship has become something that we gasp at. We think, “Censorship? No!” Even the word “censorship” has come to mean “the bad kind of censorship in which the government takes away all of our rights.” But perhaps, it’s not really such a bad thing.

The second article, if I am to continue my pervious opinion, is actually rather naïve-sounding. They say that hate speech should be aloud and even the Ku Klux Klan members and the Hitlers of the world should be give the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Of course, they make no mention of the good kind of censorship and rather deem it all as “bad”.

I would like to draw a parallel. America is a free country in which we are aloud to do whatever we want. However, there are laws to keep us safe, so we are not entirely free. But, would you have the government get rid of the law that says that it’s illegal to kill another human? Would you have them get rid of the law that says that you can’t steal things? No, I don’t think so. Censorship is the same way. We ARE a free country and you can say almost anything you want, but we have to have the censorship laws, and if you thought about it, you would see that there are forms of censorship that everyone believes in.

The article advocating free speech makes some very good points. We have come a long way from jailing people for handing out anti-war leaflets, in fact, we have the right to protest and use it frequently. I believe in that right. I believe that we need to be able to express our dissent, what I don’t believe is that it is so black and white. More a shade of grey, I would say.

This second viewpoint also says “freedom of expression…is…‘the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.’” And I have to agree. Without this, our society, a democracy, would crumble, but there are some cases in which censorship is a pillar of our society, one of the things that is keeping us afloat. Pull out this building block and we will truly crumble into anarchy.

Goodbye.

Don Imus and What He Said to Infuriate Us All

Hello.

I’m not sure if you have heard this, but in the news lately, along with much information about the shooting in Virginia, has been the more controversial issue of Don Imus. For those of you who don’t know, Don Imus made a racial slur on public airwaves, calling a basketball team that had lost the NCAA finals words offensive particularly to African Americans and to women.

The NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, supports the removal of Imus by CBS and MSNBC claiming that this is the first step to the larger issue of eradicating all racial slurs. And they are not just taking on the radio, but also modern music, TVs and movies. They also are concerned not only for racist remarks, but also bigamy, homophobia and other common insults that spread on our airwaves, TV channels and movies.

Frank Rich, on the other hand, an ex-theater reviewer and a writer for the New York Times in the op-ed section, is not so sure that the issue is black and white. He believes that what Imus said was wrong, but Imus had made many racist, sexist and homophobic comments in the past, including against Rich’s own minority, the Jews. I don’t believe that Frank Rich is saying that Don Imus shouldn’t be censored, he disagreed with much that he had said, but he believes the way to fight back is with more free speech. For example, opinionated editorials.

Now, to what I think. Frank Rich has some very good points, however, I think that some of this is being blown far out of proportion. Thirty-three people were killed in Virginia and we are just as concerned with a racial slur uttered on the radio as with the deaths of all those innocents.

However, I also think that some of the things that are out there are REALLY offensive. The worst of these are slurs that are passed off as jokes. For example, the term that has recently fallen into modern usage, “gay” as a synonym for “stupid”. People can laugh over this in their own circles, but some things are not to be joked about. Just as religion, money and politics are not to be talked about in polite conversation, homosexuality, religion and race are not things that should be joked about.

And last, there are some things out there that are OK speak out against in public. Some are calling for the removal of Rosie O’Donnell because of her comments against Chinese Americans, Christians and Gorge Bush. I think this a bit of an odd list. Christians and Chinese Americans are both groups of people. You can’t speak out against either group until you know every person from that group and can say, with utter certainty that EVERY Christian or EVERY Chinese American is “bad”. Otherwise, you are making a horrible generalization. On the other hand, however, you have Bush. It is easy to speak out against him, as you can directly disagree (or agree) with something that he says, or his opinion on a certain issue. Then, you are not making such a broad oversimplification.

Goodbye.

The Argument For Censorship (By Plato/Socrates)

Hello.

We are back on our Plato trend. We are now reading a bit in which Socrates (Plato) becomes an advocate of censorship. I think that this part of the republic in particular is hard to read, and agree with, as in a modern society like ours, censorship, though in many ways a part of our life, is generally looked down upon. Thus, this slightly radical line of thought is a bit hard to believe.

Following in my usual pattern, I choose not to answer any of the proffered questions, but instead create my own. My question is, “Can all literature be boiled down to three main categories: those in which there are only honorable men, no women, little or no representation, or dialogue, and no sound effects (such as that of an animal, or the rain), those in which there are some dishonorable men, some women, some dialogue and some sound effects, and those in which all of the above are prominent?”

I think that while it is true, and many forms of literature can be put into one of these categories (think back to the books you have read. Can they be put into at least ONE of these? Most likely.), that if you boil down things to this essential of a form, you are missing the point of the art.

Think. If I were to divide up the books I have read, I could put them into these categories, but the books that fell into the “suitable” (according to Socrates (Plato)) category would be few (VERY few, or perhaps none, for I can think of no books, off the top of my head, that have NO female characters), and certainly not my favorite books. Would that not be the case for you as well?

The books that we find enjoyable are the ones that best represent life. Life is not made up of only men, and only the “good” kind, dialogue-less “scenes” and utter silence to fill the gaps. Even now, as I type this, I can hear my dog, the wind, and the clacking of keys. All of these would be absent in the books that Socrates (Plato) suggests would be suitable. That doesn’t accurately represent the way we live, and would therefore be rather dry.

Also, I would like to talk, briefly, about these conditions that Socrates (Plato) has set. First, and perhaps this bothers me chiefly because of my gender, but why, why on earth, would Socrates want to exclude women from these ideal plays of his? What is wrong with women? If he means, as I think that he might, that we are a temptation to men, that is not chiefly our fault. No, the blame lies at the doors of men, themselves. It is their desires that cause trouble, just as much as it is that of the women. If he thinks that women are weak, as I might be led to believe from his passage on page 90, section e, “Far less can we permit representation of women in sickness or love,” he is wrong again. Men are just as susceptible to fall in love as women are, they are just as susceptible to sickness as well, and therefore, this, as well, is an unfair claim.

Next, Socrates (Plato) excludes the use of “bad men”. I think that this is a slightly odd condition as well, though I have to admit that I am nowhere near as outraged as I was about the comment about women. I think that “bad” men should be encouraged in literature in this society of Socrates’ (Plato’s). If a man or woman can learn from the mistakes of other men and women, they are less likely to make the mistake themselves. Also, I can think of no interesting story that I have read (ever, perhaps) that did not have some sort of villain in it. We, as a race, love to see the triumph of good over evil.

There are more problems I have with Socrates’ (Plato’s) qualifications, but they are a bit pickier and so I will refrain for boring you all.

Goodbye!

Wonderful Comments! (Thanks!)

Hello.

Long time no posts, eh? Spring break has been glorious. It’s a little hard getting back to this, but ah well.

The assignment today is to examine and take apart the comments that have been given to us. I have chose a few here, talk a bit about the post they were referring too and then what was so great about them.

First, Laura Mitchell left this on a post I wrote about the rain. It was supposed to be something that we loved; I love the rain, that’s what I wrote about. If you want to read the whole thing, it’s titled “Listening, Waiting, Watching”. Here is the comment that Laura left me:

“Kit, this was soooooooooo awesome. I love the way you personalize (er what ever it's called when you give inanimate things human traits.) But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human. You really do that well, especially the paragraph about the sky breathing. OH! It's personification. So, you're personifications the best part of the whole page. I knew you liked the rain but this really makes it obvious that you are in love with it, and really wish it rained more often. You make the rain seem rare and beautiful thing (I guess it is in San Diego), I really loved that. I don't know what other to say besides 'this is really good'. I'm a bit jealous myself. Kudos!”


First, I was really flattered to find this comment left on something that I had written. It’s obvious from everything about the comment that she really liked the piece. But the best thing about it was that she didn’t just say that she liked it, though she says that in the last couple of lines, she really goes in depth about what she liked. She says, “But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human.” in reference to what she had already said about personification. Thanks!

Second, this comment was left by Chris Connell. I chose it because he corrected something that I said in my post that was not true. This was helpful for my personal understanding, even if I never did go back and change it. The post was called “Fahrenheit 452 (oops!), pp. 40-68” (that it’s called “542” is a mistake. I might go and change it.)

“Wow this was really good Kit. I actually read it all! (yay for me) I really admire your take on the book and I agree with a lot of what you say. One thing I would like to clarify for you. When you were talking about the woman being burned at the stake for "hearsay". In the book it actually says that she was burned for "heresy" which means: opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system. Makes a little more sense now doesn't it?”

Thank you Chris for correcting my mistake. This was helpful to me! I’m glad that you liked it!

Next up is Beth Kurtz, commenting on my piece called “Myth, Religion or Cult?” This was a piece that I wrote on the side, it had nothing to do with school. This topic was one that Beth and I had discussed in the past, and so we were both very interested in the topic.

“Kit kit kit...

I really enjoyed your lengthy and thourough comment on my rage entry. I saw this one so bare and commentless and couldn't help to express my opinion.

I do remember us having this very conversation a little while ago. I must say that I see complete truth in the point you are making. 

I think it is not at all ridiculus to question christianity, or judeism(?) or buddhism or any other relion the same way we question myths. The only REAL difference between the two is that that the people who believed in myths are no longer alive. They were just as devoted to them as many people are now to religion. I guess this is because it gives them something to believe, something to follow. Or maybe they were never really given a choice, so it's just second nature to them. They don't even think to question it because thats just how it has been their whole life. (hmmm... sound a bit like F451?)

I'm sure you are at least vaguely familiar with a certain quote from John Lennon where he stated that they(The Beatles) were bigger than Jesus. If you read the full statment(which most people neglect to do) he says that Christianity will shrink and vanish. While this sounds ridiculous to us now, in a thousand years, who says this won't really happen? It happened with Greek myths didn't it?

He also says something like Jesus wasn't bad, but the disciples being the ones who ruined it, because they twisted it around. This isn't really relevant, but I liked that part.

Anyways... I also think it is interesting that religions such as Christianity and the practices ascociated with it have very pagan roots. This being ironic becuase how strongly paganism is rejected among christians today. 

It truly is all a matter of PERSPECTIVE and the passing of time. I think most of the time it is easier for people to accept and believe what is familiar to them or is a social norm, then go against it. I have left a rather long comment, so I won't go into the brainwashing part of it, but remind me to talk to you about that some time.

Love,
Beth the Viking.”

This was a second comment that she left, giving me the direct quote:

“I thought I should probably give you the quote, so here it is:

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first — rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me"

-John Lennon
4 March 1966

I'm sure you know the story, but in response to the "we're bigger than jesus" part(which was almost always used out of context!) people flipped out and started burning Beatles stuff and having protests and what not. It's one of those examples of people taking their religion so far that they loose sight of what it's really about in the first place. 

-Bethybumm”

Thank you, Beth, discussing this with you was VERY interesting!

The last one is from Justin Ureta. This is only one of the many, many comments that he left on my “blog” over the time that we have been engaged in these web pages, but it was the first and, I thought, a good example. If you are looking for my response, or more comments from him, I would suggest that you look on both of our “blogs” as I don’t think that any of them are all in one place. This particular comment was on a piece called “Fahrenheit 451 80-91”.

“Kit, I saw your comment on Mr. Jana's blog (Under his entry, "READ THIS: My Reflections on Blogs and Technology"), and couldn't resist but to fight in the name of computer nerds everywhere ;)

Let me start off by pointing out part of your comment: 

"We are reaching this age similar to what Captain Beatty says, “Why learn anything save pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts?” I see that already. You ask someone what the last book they read was and they can’t tell you, they don’t remember or it was something that had to read for class. So we look at why that is. I am sure that if you looked at when reading began to decrease it would drop in perfect synchronization with the introduction of an Internet that is available to anyone. Teens don’t do anything unless it is required. They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to. It doesn’t progress their understanding of “fitting nuts and bolts”.

First off, I ask you not to stereotype your fellow teens in such ways. It would have worked if you simply said "the majority of teens." 

Second off: You regard typing such intricate posts as "pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts"? Please, if you could bring me three books that you own that were handwritten, I'd love to see them.

Third off: Reading did not decrease when the internet began. That was radio. In fact, I think it is the internet that is SAVING reading! Since nothing could be easily transmitted by audio through the internet, everything is transmitted through text, causing teens all around the world to "learn" how to read again. On top of that, there are wonderful websites like www.dailylit.com that will actually SEND you novels for FREE via email. If it wasn't for them, I would have never gotten the chance to read 20,000 leagues under the sea.

Fourth off: "They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to." Do you have a journal or a diary, Kit? Tell me, what is so different between that and a blog? And as for instant messanging, have you never written a letter before, or used the telephone? Instant messaging is the same concept, except, as the name suggests, it is instant. Convenient. Furthering communication between humans. I dare you to tell me that is a bad thing. As for "only reading a book when they have to," I sadly must agree with you there. I have a theory, though, that if you took a novel and gave it to a teen, he wouldn't read it. BUT, if you took the same novel and placed the whole of it's contents on a webpage, kids would read it. For some reason, the word "book" just has a negative impact on the youth these days. Finally, I would like to direct your attention to a rather interesting piece of literature (That I found online, of all places. Gasp.) http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/

It's a rather wonderful piece, building off of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, with the thesis that the world is becoming more like the video games that once mimicked it, and what's more, why that is a GOOD THING.”

This conversation became incredibly interesting and long (and heated, I might add). It was nice to debate this topic with someone on a more personal level than in a classroom setting. One of the nice things about this debate with Justin was also that his position was so radically different from my own. This element made it much more interesting (and difficult!) to come up with new arguments, anticipating the way that he would respond. Thank you!

A last big thanks to everyone!!

Goodbye!

The Banishment of Homer

Hello.

Plato, again. Today, and I don’t have much time for a lengthy introduction, the question is, “Why would Plato ban Homer from his ideal republic?”

I think that this is because Homer, first, portrays the gods in ways that Plato (Socrates) finds derogatory and second, gives the wrong messages.

Ok, so I think that Plato (Socrates) doesn’t like the gods of Homer because they have very human faults, which he believes them not to have. He doesn’t like that Zeus would change shape, or cheat on Hera with mortal women. He also believes that the gods are incapable of telling falsehoods, which is not something that Homer seems to believe in as well.

The messages of Homer, even if we look at the small portion of the Iliad that we have read, are not something that you would want to base your scruples on for the rest of your life. Achilles is angry all the time, Agamemnon is selfish, Paris is a liar and a thief. These are supposed to heroes of Athens; Plato (Socrates) doesn’t want them to be portrayed like this. He also doesn’t want people looking at the heroes and thinking that because Achilles cannot control his temper, it is all right to be in bad humor all the time.

Goodbye.

The Banishment of Hesiod

Hello.

We are reading, in class, another section of The Republic now. The last section, as you might have guessed, was on Justice. This section, chapter three, is on education.

We are, on top of this, preparing for exhibition. Because of this, there are many things that need to be prepared. Danielle Somtrich, Beth Kurtz and I are preparing a skit, the scene from the Iliad in which Agamemnon and Achilles have their argument. Since all of the lines are to be memorized, and that is a lot of work, all of my homework is being cut, that is why you will see considerably less of it here.

The question for tonight is, “Why would Plato (Socrates) ban Hesiod (author of the war between the gods) from his ideal republic?”

My answer:

I think that Plato (Socrates) would ban Hesiod for two reasons. First, because he wasn’t fond of the poets. I think that this was because he believed that a poet, or a storyteller, can take you out of your mind or your body. As Plato (Socrates) was a fairly sensible person, I think that he wouldn’t approve of this departure from reason.

Second, I think that Plato (Socrates) didn’t like the message of Hesiod. The point, after all, of the piece that we read, the upheaval of the gods, is that the young can beat the old. I’m not sure when in his life Plato wrote, but Socrates was an older man and wouldn’t approve of younger men, in his opinion uneducated younger men, ruling the government.

Thursday is the exhibition!

Goodbye.

Truth Vs. Winning

Hello.

Plato, again. Tomorrow our class is having a Socratic seminar (oddly appropriate), and there was a list of questions from which we were supposed to choose one. Of course, in typical Kit fashion, I would rather write my own, so here it is: Is the truth or being right more important?

This question first came up because we were talking about the Sophists, and their idea that being right was more important that telling the truth. I think that’s an interesting idea because, first, the idea of truth is completely deteriorating in our society, and second, because Socrates held truth in such high regard, while Thrasymachus did not.

Here is my response to the question: I think that truth is the most important. Today, many people are more concerned with being right, though I think few would admit it, that we have lost the idea of truth. Being right is trivial.

And it’s not even about finding the truth, though that is something to work toward, but it’s arguing what’s true by you. If you argue a point that you late find to be untrue, that’s fine, because in the moment, you believed it. But if you know something to be false, or find it to be false in the course of the argument, it is more important that you acknowledge the truth, than fight the argument out to it’s conclusion simply to win.

This is why Socrates and Plato dislike the Sophists. They have no care for the truth. They will argue any point for money, and as long as they win, the truth doesn’t matter. I think that’s not right, an argument should be because there is an issue that you care about, that you believe to be true, and so you are willing to try and prove it.

I hope that I can bring this up in tomorrow’s debate.

Goodbye.

Is Justice a Hindrance to Happiness?

Hello.

Plato. The prompt today is: In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? A good question, if you ask me.

And my answer:

I think that to understand this I first need to define both my idea of happiness and justice. I’ll start with the easier of the two, happiness. Happiness is doing something, or being with someone, that you enjoy. If you love, as I do, to read, then happiness, for you, might be a good book. If you love your little brother, then happiness, for you, might be spending time with him. The most important thing here, though, is that happiness is different for every person, in the same way that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One thing will not make everyone happy.

For me, justice is harder to define, as we have been talking about it in class and Socrates, one of the greatest philosophers of all time, has said a lot about the subject. After thinking about this for a while, I think that my definition would be this: Justice is doing right in the given situation.

If Socrates were to press me on this, as he did with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, I think that we would be most likely to ask me what I meant by “right” and I would answer that “right” is what the situation calls for.

In some situations, telling the truth is “right” or “just”. In some, it is paying you dues, in some; it is the might of the strong.

I don’t mean this to say that there are no universals (things that are true in ever situation). I think that it is never right to harm someone unless it is in self-defense (and I have been thinking about this and the death penalty. I don’t agree with the death penalty myself, but many people do. Oddly enough many of these people are anti-abortion…how can you be for the death penalty and against abortion. They say that it’s not “humane” to abort a baby, as it is killing them, but what about putting prisoners to death? I am for abortion, but not because I believe that it’s OK to kill babies, but for two other reasons. First, many people who wan to get abortions can't support the baby that they are about to have. That’s why they want to abort in the first place. I think that it is important for people like them to have that choice open to them, as the children they would have would be badly cared for or sent into orphanages, where their lives would be terrible. The other reason is that children who are raped or have children too early need to be able to abort. A child when you are twelve, or ten, can ruin your life, especially if your parents aren’t willing o help you care for it. So for that, it’s not just a matter of life or death, but of TWO lives, so there you have it. Tangent over.). Another universal would be that you have to care for your friends and neighbors. You have to follow the law, you have to make the best decisions that you are able to. I think that you should tell the truth to the best of your abilities, obviously, not ALL the time, as Socrates pointed out.

So, do I think that justice hinders the pursuit of happiness? Sometimes, I think that it does. Take school for example. Sometimes, it would make me very happy to not pay attention, doodle in class, etc. but because of the rules, and what is right, I don’t. Now, this doesn’t make me profoundly unhappy, it’s just a small example.

This is part of the reason why I think that the just man will always come out behind the unjust man. The unjust man, having no morality or scruples, will do things that the just man won’t that will make him happy.

But then arises the question, would the just man be happy doing unjust things? No, most likely not, so perhaps they are both happy.

Goodbye.

Thrasymachus--What is he saying?

Hello.

Plato again. Question one for today: What is Socrates’ main argument against what Thrasymachus says, that justice is whatever the strong says it is. One of THOSE questions. I don’t like these short answer questions.

Ok, my answer. Socrates’ main point in the first part was that justice could not be whatever the strong said it was, according to their own needs, because what is the point of a governor but to care for his people? Thrasymachus says that men of law makes laws for their own benefit or intrest, this is what Socrates disproves with the comparison to men of the arts and sciences.

Second question: In the second part, what are Thrasymachus’ main points and Socrates’ response(s)?

Second answer: First, directly after the break, Thrasymachus compares lawmakers to shepherds. Unlike other men of art or science, they work solely for the benefit of themselves, not of their subjects, the sheep. And, he says no skilled craftsman makes a mistake, be they a teacher, a doctor or a mathematician. Therefore, the skilled ruler will make no mistake in acting what is best for himself, giving his subjects no reason to rebel. Second, he says that a just man will come off worse in every argument. Socrates’ response to the first point is that if we are going by the definition of a true practitioner, a man who works only to fatten his sheep for profit is not a practitioner, he is a business man, as a practitioner would act only for the benefit of his subjects. To the second point, Socrates slighly avoids the idea, as it seems that there can be no answer. The unjust man WILL come out better in any argument. Instead, he talks about the want to rule, which I think links back to what he believes about the philosopher kings.

And now, my own question: Is Thrasymachus right? Are there some situations in which might does make right?

I think that the answer is yes. I think that, though I would love to believe in some lofty notion of justice, in the real world, a world that Socrates doesn’t seem to acknowledge, justice isn’t always so perfect. Sometimes, might DOES make right, in the real world.

A perfect example of this would be war. In war, the mightiest win, and who is “right” in war is written by the victor. Does that mean that they are REALLY right? No, not necessarily. But will anyone ever know? Few will.

One of the very good points that Thrasymachus makes that Socrates evades all together is that the just man will always come out behind the unjust man in most transactions. Though Socrates has something to say to almost all of Thrasymarchus points, he says nothing to this. This is because, in my opinion, you can’t deny the fact that in ninety-nine percent of all cases, the unjust man will prevail. Think about life in general. Most people who do good deeds everyday will go unnoticed for the rest of their lives. Perhaps they will give their money away to charities and family members who need it and end up poor. The unjust man, however, will keep all of his money to himself, as he is also not “good” we determined that at the end of the passage, part of being just is being “good”—though the definition of good is anyone’s guess—he will live comfortable, never wanting for anything. Will the just man ever get any credit for what he has done? No, most likely not, will any of those people every repay him? No, though he is most likely happy to give him money away.

This is rather circumstantial, but an unjust man would be willing to do things for money that a just man would never think of. So the just man is the better person, but will always end up one step behind.

So there you have it, my opinion. Thrasymachus may have a very valid point, and what does that say about us?

Goodbye.

The Just Man

Hello.

I am first to answer why Polemarchus gave in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not? (I don’t think that sentence is worded very well). So here is my response:

First, Cephalus walked away when they had just started to debate, so we have no idea how the argument would have turned out if he stayed to battle it out with Socrates.

Second, Socrates might not have won against Cephalus. I think (I’m really not sure, though) that Cephalus is older than Socrates, which might mean he would have been able to deflect Socrates’ argument better than his son did. Polemarchus was something of a pushover, like Glaucon. He didn’t really put up a fight, but mainly agreed with Socrates in every point that he made, until after Socrates had revealed his purpose. There were some points in the text where I would have fought against the argument, and Polemarchus merely agreed.

Last, I think that Socrates’ argument was REALLY good. There were only a few points at which I would have found some fault with his logic. I don’t think that Polemarchus had much choice but to give up.

And here I get to make my own question! Ok, mine is this: “Do you think that a just man can be compared to a doctor or a navigator or a cook?”

I choose this in part because this is one of the points that I would have argued with Socrates over because I don’t think that you can make that comparison.

I think that a just man cannot be compared with a navigator, a cook or a doctor, and my reason is simple: “a just man” is not a profession as navigator, cook and doctor are. ALL of these men should be just. I think that this is main fault of Socrates’ logic. He talks of “just man” as though it were a job title, which I think it isn’t.

After this, he goes on to talk about how a just man is “useless when you are using things, and useful when you are not (pg 13, section 333, just above part e).” But I think that all of the professions that Socrates lists, musician, a farmer, a shoemaker, should be just men as well. This means that Socrates cannot be right in this statement. Justice is MOST useful when you are using something, or doing something. For example, wouldn’t you want your doctor or your shoemaker to be just and fair?

He also says that if you were to keep something, like a pruning knife, you should call on the just man, but if you wanted to use it, you should look to the vinedresser. This is true, the man who keeps your pruning knife should be just, but so should the vinedresser.

Goodbye.

Friends

Hello.

The topic for today is very interesting. I am to define what a friend is. Rather than ramble, as I tend to do, I will get right to it.

A friend is more than just a person. A friend is a bundle of shared experiences and emotions; phone calls, emails, movies, discussions in the dark, a whirl of places, laughter, tears, love, hate, and joy. A friend is someone you can call at any time of the day or night, and find a sympathetic voice on the other end of the line. A friend is someone who you can spill your heart to. Someone that can know everything about you, past and present, fears and hopes, dreams and desires, and still like you for all of your faults. A friend is someone who you know almost as well as yourself, whose wishes are as familiar to you as your own, whose past you know as well as your own. A friend is someone who will be with you through your mistakes, your stupid moments, and be able to forgive you when you come out the other side. A friend is someone who will dance in the rain with you, climb trees with you, write with you, someone who will laugh with you, share your likes and dislikes, talk with you, listen to you, and just sit with you, when there is nothing left to say, and you have spilled you hearts. Someone who likes you simply because of who you are, not because they are obligated to.

Think about it. How many people know you that will stick with you through thick and thin, through heartbreak and happiness? If the answer is none, if you can think of no one who knows you so well, perhaps you have to recategorize the people you call friends. Because a true friend is one you could—and would—trust with your life, or your most precious possession. Trust, and shared experiences, is what makes a friendship.

Goodbye.

Justice (capital "J" justice)

Hello.

Tonight, the assignment is the kind I like the least. I really don’t like answering these direct text questions, by that, I mean questions that can be looked up in the text. While they prove that someone is reading the text, there is no room for opinion or judgment of what has been said. I hope that you are reading this, Mr. Jana. To the questions…

Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?

Chephalus is an old man who lives in the sea port of Piraeus. He speaks, in the first part of this section, about old age and how each man takes it differently. He appears to be wealthy, but not too wealthy, though he cares nothing for money.

Polemarchus is Chephalus’ son and appears to be a friend of Socrates’. As of yet, he has not spoken very much.

What is the profession of Cephalus?

Now he is an old man, and so has no real profession. His father and his grandfather both had and made money (though his father seemed to lose more than he made). He has made some of his own money, though some of it was inherited. I would guess that his family was in the merchant business.

What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?

Sacrificing something. There seems to be some kind of caravel or festival going on in devotion to some goddess.

According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?

You are not plagued by desires for sex (in Cephalus’ case, though there are some me who yearn for youth, parties and physical pleasure), again in Cephalus’ case, you don’t care much about money and it is a time to right all your wrongs and contemplate what happens to someone when they die.

What are Cephalus’ view of justice?

Cephalus believes that you should be truthful and repay all of your debts, because, especially in his case, he believes that it is stupid to take money with you when you die.

What is Socrates response?

That it is not always right to be truthful (which I agree with, sometimes, I think that it is better to tell someone what they want to hear, but this only extends to small matters. In anything large, I believe one should always tell the truth) or to return things that you have borrowed, for example, if you borrowed a weapon from a man that then when mad and wanted it back, it would be best not to give it to him, or tell him the truth about his madness, say.

As to who I agree with, I say that I agree with ELEMENTS, elements only, of both arguments. I agree that nine times out of ten, you should be entirely truthful, and that tenth time, you shouldn’t tell an outright lie, but more of a half truth. Cephalus believes that you should ALWAYS be truthful, but I don’t think that. I can’s agree with Socrates either, because I believe that nine times out of ten, you should return something that has been borrowed, of course, in Socrates’ example, I wouldn’t recommend putting a weapon in the hand of a mad man, but the rest of the times, I would say that it is better to return something.

Part of the reason that I like Cephalus’ argument is that it is very different from the other arguments that we talked about in class. Those arguments were, Justice is truth and returning what you borrowed (Cephalus’), Justice is helping your friends and harming your enemies, or, there is no Justice, there is only force and the strong and what the strong make you do, the punishments that they exact to keep people from misbehaving. I have paraphrased these, so they may be a little different. In the other arguments, force is always implied, help your friends HURT your enemies. MIGHT is right. So I like Cephalus and think that his argument because it is very peaceful, though not necessarily right all the time.

More updates on Plato to come.

Goodbye.

The Allegory Cave and the Truth (with a capital "T")

Hello.

Ok, “The Allegory of the Cave” (or “The Simile of the Cave”). I’m not sure that I agree with everything being said in this piece, though I have thought about it a lot (I honestly thought of scanning in the notes I took on the page because they show A LOT of thought), but I do know that I really like the way it’s written and the actually simile of the cave, which is described in the first half of this piece.

I think that for this one, I’m going to write my own prompt. The question that I ask myself is, “Is Truth, and seeing clearly (the “light”) better for lawmakers, or should lawmakers be in the cave, with all of their subjects? IS there anyone else?”

The first thing that I want to address about this question is the last thing in this whole piece. The very last line is “There is no one else.” This line particularly bothered me, because, in my glass-is-half-full opinion, there is ALWAYS someone else. And I think there lies the main problem I have with the philosophers. They believe that they are the only ones; they are the only ones clever enough to rule. They believe that there is no position other than that of a philosopher, who looks down on the government. This is stated on page 248, line 521, part b, roughly.

I know that it says that they believe that a man who is educated is just as bad, as a lawmaker, as one that is not educated. The man who stands in the light, is blinded in the cave, and the one in the cave is blinded by the light, neither can see both, but that is what they are saying about people who rule. A good ruler would be one who can look at the light, then come back to the cave to share what he has seen.

To the question. I think that it is better to be educated then to not be. If you are “in the cave” and leading others “in the cave”, then it is the blind leading the blind. You can’t make good decisions if you don’t have an education. Of course, I am biased. I am an American in a good school, with good grades, raised by two professors, so of course that I think that being educated is the best.

But I think that part of the reason that Plato doesn’t believe that educated people can rule well is because he believes that ALL educated people can’t return to the cave and are too engrossed in their “divine’ thoughts to come back from the sun, or the fire.

So what to take away from this piece? I don’t know, honestly. I think that it’s impossible to truly stare at the sun. No one can really know the truth, so everyone is just looking at reflections. And here, I would like to reference “The Lady of Shalott”, a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson. In the poem, the Lady of Shalott is locked in a tower and forced by a curse she has only heard whispers of, to look at the world only through a mirror, which is what I am trying to say here: we are all looking at the truth only through mirrors.

Ok, here’s the quote:

And moving through a mirror clear
That hangs before her all the year,
Shadows of the world appear.
There she sees the highway near
Winding down to Camelot;
There the river eddy whirls,
And there the surly village churls,
And the red cloaks of market girls
Pass onward from Shalott.

Sometimes a troop of damsels glad,
An abbot on an ambling pad,
Sometimes a curly shepherd lad,
Or long-hair'd page in crimson clad
Goes by to tower'd Camelot;
And sometimes through the mirror blue
The knights come riding two and two.
She hath no loyal Knight and true,
The Lady of Shalott.

But in her web she still delights
To weave the mirror's magic sights,
For often through the silent nights
A funeral, with plumes and lights
And music, went to Camelot;
Or when the Moon was overhead,
Came two young lovers lately wed.
"I am half sick of shadows," said
The Lady of Shalott.

If you want to read the whole thing, go to this website: http://charon.sfsu.edu/TENNYSON/TENNLADY.HTML. It really is a phenomenal poem, and I think that it is closely related to the Allegory of the Cave.

Alrighty, I’m done.

Goodbye.

The Truth

Hello.

The subject of this “blog” is supposed to be when we found something that we thought to be true, like a fact, was actually a lie, or simply false. I’ve thought about this for a long time, and there are many things that I could write for this, but I don’t want to post any of them on the Internet, as it is a public space.

I suppose that the next best example would not be a moment of realization, so much as a slow realization of something. I think the best way to put it, was that I lost my belief.

At some point, I just realized that I didn’t really believe that there was magic in the world and a lot of other things that I had believed in for so long. I was sad, not just because I didn’t believe any more, and I can’t read a book without the nagging voice in the back of my head that says that it will never happen to me, but because it was sort of like a marker that I was no longer a child any more.

That may seem stupid to some people, especially the ones that can't wait to grow up, but I have never wanted to rush to the next stage. I wanted to stay a child in fact, because there are so many things that you can do when you are young. There are so many things that you don’t have to worry about, sometimes simply because you don’t understand them.

Somehow, there is a part of us that wants to believe that there is something else than this doddering existence. Something else than this monotonous circle. That escape really mattered to me, because I couldn’t—and still can't—find the excitement in a normal life. I look at the next twenty, thirty, forty years and I think that I wont be able to stand the sameness. When you lose that escape, it really is a blow. I think we all have to get over it though, it’s a challenge that we all face at some point, that there is no escape.

So, I’ve rambled enough.

Goodbye.

Pride

Hello.

I was originally going to write one of my “pride is a monster” analogies, but I decided against it. Instead, I think that I’ll write about myself. I’ll follow the prompt, for once. I do have a tendency to stray from them.

I think that, thought I don’t consider myself to be particularly prideful, I am constantly held back from things because of how I want to appear to other people. I don’t say everything that feel, or tell all of my secrets because I am worried about what people will think of me.

Now, this sounds good, keeping to yourself. You’re never embarrassed by something that you share, you never regret saying too much. Yes, it sounds good, but it’s a heavy burden. Think, for a moment, of yourself as a ball of yarn. The more you keep to yourself, the more you have on the inside, the more tangled up you are, and the more difficult it is to sort out all of the things that you have there. Say you share this yarn, you pull it out and spread it around. You’re sort of hollow now, you have everything on the inside, on the outside, but you feel so much lighter.

So pride keeps me from that. Is that bad? I’m not sure. Pride is a hard one to sort out…

Iliad Assignment, Book Sixteen (pp. 434-441 lines 800 - end)

Hello.

Ok, so we skipped the middle section of book 16, but we did read the end in which Patroclus is killed by Hector, Apollo and another slightly unimportant warrior named Euphorbus. Before he dies, Patroclus predicts that Hector will be killed by Achilles (avenging his death) very soon. Hector disregards this and taunts Patroclus’ dead body.

I don’t really have a question for this section; I thought that it was vary clear. I do have a question about section 9, however. What was it that changed Achilles’ mind and made him stay? In the end of the book, if you remember, he was ready to leave the next day.

I think that Achilles is going to go out and avenge Patroclus and that his final prophesy will come to pass. I think that were loot and women couldn’t tempt Achilles out, Patroclus’ death will.

Goodbye.

Iliad Assignment, Book Sixteen (pp. 412-421 lines 1-333)

Hello.

We are now on book 16 of the Iliad (I know, fairly large jump). This chapter is aptly titled “Patroclus Fights and Dies”. The reason for this grim title will become apparent through this “blog” entry.

Patroclus is only aloud to fight in the first place because Achilles allows him too. Patroclus and the Myrmidons are all ready for battle and tired of sitting around. Patroclus wants to fight for that reason and because he believes that it will raise the moral of the Achaeans if they see Achilles’ armor, even if it’s not him underneath. Also, it will scare the Trojans if they think that Achilles has rejoined the fight. Achilles agrees to allow Patroclus wear his armor because of these reasons, and to keep the Trojans away from the ships so the Atrides still have an escape route.

On line 35 (or so), page 413, Patroclus says that Achilles is cursed in his own courage. I think that this could mean two things, though I am not entirely sure which (if either) is correct. I think that it could either mean that Achilles is cursed DESPITE his courage, or, it could mean that Achilles is cursed BECAUSE of his courage. I think that the latter is more likely to be right because of the way the sentence in question is worded. I’m not sure why he says that though, because it seems to me that Achilles is not a coward, and if he was, I don’t think that it would mean he was cursed because of the courage he had.

My question for this one would be, Why does Zeus not grant both parts of Achilles’ prayer (his prayer, if you remember, would be that Patroclus keeps the Trojans off the Achaean ships AND that he returns safely)? Why does he not allow Patroclus to return?

That is what the homework requires; no more I am afraid, as I have a lot of homework.

Goodbye.

Iliad Assignment, Book Nine (pp. 266-275 lines 521-869)

Hello.

The assignment of today is similar to that of yesterday. I am first to ask a question, I think that mine would be, how could Achilles honestly think that the gods will simply let him sail home? He knows that he is to die at Troy, so how can he think that he will be allowed to leave?

My opinion of Achilles, like my opinion of Agamemnon, did not change after I read book nine. Achilles said, rather specifically, that Agamemnon would come begging Achilles for help, and that he would refuse and still Agamemnon disregarded the fact. Only now that men are being killed in earnest, does he try to apologize. We skipped seven books, but not once through any of those did Agamemnon try to apologize. And now that he is, he wants Achilles to admit that he is the better man? I would have refused as well, even for all of the riches in the world.

There is not much persuasion in this part of the book, as the only one talking is Phoenix. I will, however, do my best to capture his methods of urging.

The first instance of Phoenix’s persuasion would be on page 266, starting with line 529. Phoenix uses his own emotions to show how little he likes Achilles’ plan of leaving. He asks him incredulously if he can honestly be thinking of leaving. I think that this would appeal most to Achilles’ pride as Phoenix is a mentor of his and his distrust would effect Achilles the most.

The second instance would be when Phoenix, on page 268, starting with line 601, talks of how the even the gods change and can be won over with bribes. He says that the gods are flexible, but Achilles is not. This is, again, appealing to his emotions, as he is trying to tell him that if even the gods can be placated with bribes, so should Achilles.

I think that the last instance would be when Phoenix tells Achilles the story of the man, Meleager starting on page 269 with line 646. He uses this story of another man who sat out of battle to try and make Achilles realize why he should rejoin the fight. In the story Meleager doesn’t fight again until his wife—Cleopatra—begs him too, and then it is too late for him to claim the prizes other men offered in an attempt to bring him back. This appeals to emotions as well, trying to make Achilles realize that he had better accept the prizes now.

Goodbye.

Iliad Assignment, Book Nine (pp. 251-266 lines 1-522)

Hello.

Iliad time again. We are jumping around a lot, not reading straight through, so we are now on book nine of the Iliad. We haven’t even finished book one.

First, I am to come up with a question, so here it is: If you were Achilles and you know that to fight would mean that you die, though gain everlasting honor, would you accept the spoils, effectively submitting to death, or would you remain sitting out? Three things to consider: first, if you accept, and die, you will only receive half of the fortune Agamemnon promises, considering half of it is only given under the condition that you live to make it back to Mycenae. Second, you will regain Briseis, your treasured prize, if you accept, though you will not be able to enjoy her for long, as you will soon die. Last, your honor is of the utmost importance to you and your society and you will lose honor (and arête) if you retreat.

This section sheds a lot of light on the character of Agamemnon. Before this I thought of him as a selfish, unthinking, quick-tempered coward. I have to say that few of those traits can now be crossed off that list.

Some will say that it was very “kind” of Agamemnon to offer Achilles such prizes. Yes, how very kind of him. But let me remind you all that Agamemnon stole Achilles’ prize and insulted him in front of the men. He did all of that knowingly, and now, only when times are desperate, does he want Achilles back. Now he comes slinking back to Achilles like a reprimanded child, asking for forgiveness. I, personally, don’t think that that forgiveness can be bought so easily. And, Achilles can have all of this if he will only submit and admit that Agamemnon is the greater man. A further blow to his honor. Also, he gives all of that to Achilles, but not a word of apology. So, though it was very “kind” of Agamemnon to offer Achilles everything that he did, my opinion of him has not changed.

As for persuasion, I think that the first instance of this is on page 252, starting with line 36. Diomedes stands up to the counsel of leaders and tries to persuade them not to abandon hope at Troy. I think that he appeals to emotions to plead his case, talking of the honor of the Greeks to keep them on the beaches of Troy.

Next, and though it is indirect, Agamemnon, tries to persuade Achilles, starting on page 255, line 147, to join the war again. He doesn’t do this by applying to his reason, his emotions or his ethics, but rather to the greed that Agamemnon believes Achilles to have. He is, essentially, bribing him. I suppose, that forced into a category, this would be appealing to emotions, as greed is, after all a powerful human emotion. This is a good example for that because Agamemnon is trying to make a case, trying to win Achilles over, but he fails, and as an outsider, it is easy to see what he did wrong (see above rant on Agamemnon).

Last, Odysseus pleads with Achilles to stay. He is a messenger of Agamemnon and does repeat what Agamemnon says, but he also asks Achilles to stay for the troops, appealing to his ethics. He says that Achilles should “take pity” (page 261, line 365) on the troops and somehow save them. I think that this plea, coming from Odysseus, Achilles’ friend, would be far more powerful than any of Agamemnon’s bribes. Agamemnon made a very wise move when he sent Odysseus to talk with Achilles; he does a very good job at relaying the message and giving one of his own.

I like the Iliad very much. I think that it is a wonderful book because off all of the human emotions that it contains. I am also simultaneously reading the Odyssey, which is wonderful as well.

Goodbye.

Arguments

Hello.

Arguments.

We’ve all been in a lot of them. They hurt us all. We all say things that we wish we hadn’t and we look back with regret.

I don’t really want to call one argument to mind. I hate them. I will, instead, talk of my arguments as a whole.

I would say that I fight the most with my father. For some reason, our personalities clash, though sometimes we are very like each other. It is hard to say what sets us off most of the time. It’s almost always petty. We’ll yell for a few minuets, I’ll retreat to my room, stamping my feet and dashing away angry tears. He’ll then come up the stairs softly and knock on my door lightly. I tell him to go away and he opens the door anyway. He asks if I’m still angry and if I hate him, at which point I give up and tell him that, yes, I am still angry, but no, I don’t hate him.

Arguments with my brother are common, but always petty. He’ll be doing something to annoy me, I do something in return, he retaliates, and I stand up from our worn kitchen table and walk into another room, telling him that sometimes, I cant stand him.

Arguments with my friends are even more rare. I can’t remember the last time I fought with most of them. I do, sometimes, get annoyed, as I seem to do with most people if I spend too much time with them, and say something sharp that I don’t mean. It has never gone beyond that.

And the most rare of all are arguments with my mother. I hate these more than all the rest combined. I suppose that’s because I love her the most. I have a tendency to cry a lot in arguments with her. I’m always so worried. What I would do if she stayed angry at me?

Arguments are painful.

Book one Reflection

Hello.

I really liked this first book of the Iliad. I loved the language and all of the emotions that are shown, even such a short piece.

I have to say that I think that Achilles’ anger is entirely justified. In a society where your arête is everything, and your pride is your most important possession, it is not just a war prize that Agamemnon is stripping Achilles of. He is taking away is honor.

Then, of course, there is the matter of Agamemnon himself. Agamemnon is, essentially, a coward. He has never been into battle, he has never been on the front lines and yet he gets the best share of the loot, while warriors like Achilles, who fight hard all the time, get very little.

I cannot say that I think that Achilles was justified in calling his mother down form the heavens and pleading with her to talk to Zeus. No matter how much his honor was wounded, he has no right to wish that his own troops be killed. They are, after all, Greeks, such as himself.

I believe that even if Zeus were not to kill off troops, Agamemnon would soon realize that he could not win without Achilles.

Goodbye.

*Myth, Religon or Cult?*

Hello.

I would like to take just a brief moment to rant about the difference between a myth, a religion and a cult.

The official definition of a cult: the object of such devotion. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Sociology. A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

The official definition of a religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world.

The official definition of a myth: Any story that attempts to explain how the world was created or why the world is the way that it is. Myths are stories that are passed on from generation to generation and normally involve religion. Most myths were first spread by oral tradition and then were written down in some literary form. Many ancient literary works are, in fact, myths as myths appear in every ancient culture of the planet.

See a pattern? Well, that would be because they are all essentially the same.

What is a cult but a poorer, less powerful religion? What is a myth but a religion few believe in anymore?

The reason I bring this up is because we are reading “myths” in class and questioning the truth of them. No one (aside from us atheists) would ever question the truth of Christianity, but to me, that is a myth. The “myth” of the Greek gods was believed as a religion once, yet we question the “truth” of it. No one would ever say that the bible was unlikely to be true.

The other thing that has been really bothering me is a question on the California State Standards Test (the STAR test) last year. It was in the reading comprehension section. First, we had to read an article about “myths”, and then answer some questions. One of the questions was “Why did the Greeks invent their gods?” the answer they were looking for was “To explain natural happenings.” I was really angry about this question because the same question COULD be asked of Christianity, but no one ever would.

Just a few little things that anger me…

Goodbye.

*Rage--Cause*

Rage is a sly monster.

It’s more potent than doubt, more powerful than grief. It doesn’t creep into your mind in the middle of the night, like jealousy, you’re not born with it with it, like happiness. No, rage steals over you quickly, sweeping through your blood. It doesn’t creep, it pounces.

Rage, in many ways, is more human than the others. Unfortunately, the evilest of emotions hides in human form. Like the wraith that sheds its skin to inhabit another, rage changes its shape, presenting itself in the figure most appeasing to its viewer.

And perhaps worst of all, rage is a monster that makes itself appealing. It sweeps over the soul, and then roosts there. It twists itself into a tempting snake, coiling around your heart, offering you a shining apple of false comfort. It consoles you while quietly fueling the burning fire it has started, perhaps without the knowledge of its seemingly innocent host.

Rage will consume you, devour your soul.

*Burning Fear (Fahrenheit 451)*

Hello.

This assignment was to rewrite a scene from the book that was frightening from the prospective of one of the characters in the scene. My last post was describing this and choosing words that I liked from it. Now, here is the scene, the way I (and the poor woman) see it:

A knock came fast and hard at the door. Whoever was on the other side banged away at the fragile piece of wood, how flimsy it seemed under their fist! Doors had always been a safety, something to keep out the talking walls, talking people, talking world. Everything talked and they all talked and talked about nothing.

Slowly she walked to the door, only one person, or group of people, rather, could be on the other side. Only one person would come to see her. Only one person would care enough to visit her.

She stood for a moment, filled with the noisy sound of knocking and the sound of her own racing heart and thoughts. It seemed to take an infinite amount of time to reach the knob, to turn it. She stretched out her hand, wondering, childishly, if she would be able to reach, it seemed like such a very long way.

As soon as the door was open things moved very quickly. A man was revealed on the porch, a man with his fist still raised in the attitude of knocking. The man grabbed her arms, holding her like a limp doll and shaking her, shaking and shaking.

She didn’t feel able to move, the coming and going of her breath seemed to be the only movement through her whole body, she couldn’t even hear her own heart beat. Her eyes were fixed on the wall, a single spot of color there. Had it always been there? She wondered, it looked like a bloody fingerprint, just a bit below her eye level. She watched it while they shook her. She knew that she was weaving drunkenly across the porch, swaying in a sort of fear-induced trance.

There were words, words she had told herself that she would say if they came. When they came. No one escaped, no one was spared their rigorous purging. The words, the words, they were, they were…

“Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” Yes, those were the words, she wasn’t sure from what well she had dug them. She wasn’t sure how she had managed to remember anything, the rest of her mind seemed so blank. But perhaps it was like the wall in her entrance hall, blank with just enough distinction to give her the courage to perform her final act.

The man, the tall one, the leader was screaming at her, asking her where the books were. He wanted her books, he wanted to burn them. She swayed a bit and fixed her eyes on a point just past his broad shoulder. She focused on that stretch of wall behind him, focused on it to give her courage. She had never been more afraid…or more purposeful.

His hand came down across her face. The slap stung painfully and tears came to her eyes, they hid there, waiting for the moment to spill over. “Where are they?” he asked, digging his fingers into her shoulder.

More words, there were more words that she needed. Why couldn’t she find them? She knew ever so many words, she just need a few, just a simple few. “You know—” she started but no sound seemed to be issuing from her mouth. She tried to gather her courage, to wrap it about her like a cloak, a cloak of protection. “You know where they are or you wouldn’t be here.” Her voice was stronger now, more forceful and defiant sounding.

A card, a white one with stark black text was thrust under her nose. It looked so ugly to her. It was nothing at all like the beautiful text from her books. It was far too harsh, too hideously frightening. She didn’t even read it.

“That would be Mrs. Blake, my neighbor.” She wondered where she found the words with which to lie. They flew so smoothly to her mouth, the lie was so easy.

The men were already off, screaming triumphant cries at the overpowering of one woman. They had no idea what they were doing. They were the mindless slaves of their twisted sense of justice. Except for the leader. He knew. He saw the lies that were being fed to the people. He was the worst kind of scum, because he knew the deceit and did nothing. Filth.

They rushed up her stairs and started to hack away at her attic door, banging it down. She stood there, motionless for a moment. Fear was paralyzing, it rooted her feet to the ground, froze her hands.

No, no, she thought. There was more, more she had to do. Quickly, silently, she rushed to the kitchen. Matches, she needed matches. They were hidden; no one used matches any more. She most likely had the only store left in the whole city. Just one, just one would do. She looked at the tiny thing, sitting in the palm of her hand. It was so small. So pitiful, it was just a small stick, just a red head, angry looking.

She moved back to the hallway and stood there, listening in silence to the raging men upstairs, they were so loud and she knew it was to cover her own silence. She felt a small triumph in their unrest. Her silence spoke far louder than their words.

The came tumbling back down the stairs, dragging their horrible kerosene bottles. She hated the stench, it was so cloying. Books were sprayed with the stuff; it was a physical blow to see them drenched, the dye from their covers seeping over the floor, the gilt of their titles peeling off with the stinking liquid.

One of them kneeled by her, he was trying to get her to move, to pull her out of the house. She didn’t want to move, she didn’t want to leave, she had to finish it, she had to.

No, she told him, no. He was persistent. He pulled on her arm, tried to coax her. No, she said again and again. Finally, she revealed the tiny, powerful kitchen match. The man, the kind one, stepped back and the boss edged to the door in a way that she knew was nervous, though he tried to hide it.

How powerful the kitchen match felt. She could have been holding a gun and commanded no more respect. She touched the covers of the books around her, caressing them.

Goodbye, she thought, and lit the match. Goodbye.

Hesiod Writing Asignment

Hello.

Wow. Two posts from me in one day. You must feel privileged. I jest, I jest.

This one is on a new and exciting project, however. As might have been determined from the last few posts, we have, as a class, finished reading and analyzing Fahrenheit 451 (except for the essay that we have due). Therefore, we are moving on to a new topic: Greek myths.

We have started by reading a section from Hesiod’s “The Theogony”. The word “theogony” means, literally a genealogy of the gods. This particular part we read was about the birth of the Greek gods and their reaction to those that came before them, the Titans.

In the story, one of the things that it tells is the birth of the “head god” Zeus. Zeus was the son of Cronus, who was, in turn, the son of Uranus. Both Uranus and Cronus disposed of their children, Uranus because he was afraid, and Cronus because there was a prophecy that one of his children would overthrow him.

Cronus ate all of his children. When he had Zeus, his wife, Rhea, replaced the newborn with a rock wrapped in swaddling cloth. Cronus then ate this, and, unbeknownst to him, his son lived.

Some years later, after Zeus had grown, he returned to his father. He fed him a poison that caused him to vomit up all of his children, who were, by now, full grown. With his brothers and sisters, as well as the imprisoned children of Uranus, Zeus waged war against the other Titans, and after ten years of fighting, he won, taking the rule of the world.

In some ways, Zeus is similar to his father and grandfather. He is far kinder to his children that either of them were, but like Cronus, he defeated his own father. He also has a slight want of power, though not as strong as either Cronus or Uranus.

I think that the largest difference, however is that Zeus has a much less tenuous hold over his subjects. Unlike his father or grandfather, he is (or should I say “was”?) unlikely to be overthrown by any of his descendants. With my rather limited knowledge of the Greek gods, I can say that I don’t think that there are any of the gods who are strong enough, or would want to overthrow Zeus.

More on this subject to follow.

Goodbye.

Words From Fahrenheit 451

Hello.

Though Mr. Jana mentioned this scene on his “blog” I was particularly attracted to it. After looking through the book, I couldn’t find a scene in which I thought conveyed emotion, and the emotion of fear, so well so I decided to come back to this part.

The scene I speak of is the one in which the woman is burned with all of her books. I chose it in part because of how powerful I thought it was. She believed so strongly in her cause that she was willing to die, mater-like, for it.

I think that depending on your cause, it can be easy to defend it, perhaps even die for it, but books…they’re not a cause, they’re a thing, and no matter how many people die in the defense of books, the opinion of the public and the government aren’t going to be changed.

Is the scene frightening? Strangely enough the woman seems very calm. She lights the match herself, once she has been caught, she doesn’t show a flicker of fear. I’m not afraid of dying, but the bravery this woman shows is truly wonderful.

Now, I have been instructed to choose words out of this scene that are particularly descriptive. On to that…

Staggering—pg. 38
Clumsily—pg. 38
Accusing—pg. 37
Condemnation—pg. 39
Contempt—pg. 40
Weaving—pg. 36
Objectivity—pg. 36
Musty—pg.36
Snuffing—pg. 36

The page numbers, of course, correspond to pages in Fahrenheit 451. I hope that you too enjoy these words.

Goodbye.

Words, Wonderful, Wonderful Words

Hello.

These are words chosen both from my “blog” and other people’s. The names are next to the word I chose out of one of their pieces. Mainly, I looked at their “Dread” and “Happiness” writing pieces.

As you are to soon find out, I like words for either what they mean, the image they bring to mind or the way they sound when one says them. For best results, say the word out loud, you’ll understand what I am saying better. If you don’t understand what a word means, I would like to introduce you to our friend the dictionary, who can most certainly help you!

If you would like to leave a word that you like as well, I would love to get a comment from you!

Immeasurable—Austin

I just like the way this word sounds when you say it. Go ahead, say it out loud, I can wait… I just like the depth of the word when you say it.

Luminosity –Austin

I chose this word because I like the image that it conjures. I see a light in a dark room, or perhaps a star flaring to life in space.

Gentle—Beth

Gentle, in many ways, is perhaps the most…common (for lack of a better word), only in terms of how often you hear it in conversation. No matter how flowery my prose, when I speak, it’s pretty normal. I like gentle because it is almost onomatopoeic (making a sound, when you say, similar to the sound of the thing that you are describing, for example, “meow”. When you say it, it sounds like the meow of a cat), it just sounds soft.

Pulses—Beth

I like this word because of the many things that it can be used to describe and the forcefulness of it.

Gleaming—Beth

One word: shiny. I love things that are shiny, sound shiny or are related to shiny things.

Serenity—Beth

What I like most about this word is that so many other, more common words could be used in stead, but Beth chose to use this one, which has such a beautiful meaning and sound.

Garish—Kit

This word sounds harsh and bright. It describes perfectly light or something else that is too bright, ridiculous or distasteful for some other calmer word.

Rambles—Kit

To me, this word brings to mind a river that sort of meanders. It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…rather like my posts.

Seeps—Kit

This word makes me think of something leeching through fabric, or under a door (as I used it in my “My Fear, My Dread” paragraph). It just sounds like something unpleasant…well, seeping.

Noxious—Kit

First, I love the way this word sounds. Second, I think that it sounds like a poisonous plant or something. It could fit right in my Nightshade, Hemlock and Ivy. They all just have odd spellings and sounds.

Paralyzing—Kit

I’m not sure why I like this one. I think that it is because it isn’t just “frozen” or “still”, it’s something fare more interesting. It’s not a very pretty sounding word.

Goodbye.

Fahrenheit 451 pp. 154-End (165)

Hello.

I had a wonderful post that was beautifully written and well thought out, when I did something stupid and accidentally deleted an hour’s worth of work and a page an a half-long post. As a result, I will have to be briefer in this new version. I apologize for that.

The first thing that I have to say about the ending of Fahrenheit 451 is wow. I sit here at my computer, utterly pissed off at the vile thing, and can’t come up with anything witty or clever to say. All I can say is wow.

I had this idea in my head that there was no way that Bradbury could tie up the ending happily. Montag and his rag-tag group of men were going to spend the rest of their lives living on the train tracks, never having the opportunity to recite what they had so long stored away in their heads. Meanwhile, the civilization would kill each other and deaden their minds with “parlor games”. That leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

But it wasn’t like that at all.

True, the city was bombed and, true, that’s sad, but is not nearly so sad as if Montag and the other men had never helped society had had spent their whole lives on the tracks.

It was a marvelous ending.

Montag and the other old men get a chance to recite what they had stored to someone who might, just might, listen, now that the country is at war.

I think this is part of what Montag was saying when he said that if anyone asked them what they were doing, he could say that they were remembering. They were remembering the books; they were remembering the way things used to be. But perhaps most important of all, they were remembering what happened to their civilization. They remembered so that one day, man wouldn’t have to be a phoenix, they wouldn’t have to burn and be reborn from the ashes. They wouldn’t have to burn at all.

I think that the phoenix analogy is truly great for two reasons. The first is that is perfectly illustrates the way Montag’s society operates. It burns, it’s reborn from the ashes, yes, but if people just remembered their mistakes, perhaps they wouldn’t have a catalyst as dramatic as complete destruction for any change to happen. The second reason that I think it is so powerful is because if follows the trend of burning that exists throughout the book. I think that it really connects to my last post in which I quoted the line about the sun and time burning.

I am sorry that this is not nearly as good as the original, but I do have a lot of homework and not the time to recreate with the beautiful language.

Goodbye.

Fahrenhiet 452 pp. 138-154

Hello.

I think that other than the sections of this book that contain Clarisse, this was my favorite part. One of the reasons I really like it is because the metaphors return and you lose the rushed feeling that Bradbury’s writing takes on while Montag is on the run. I really didn’t like the last section for this reason. It’s not just Montag and his emotions that become rushed, but the actual style of writing.

In this one I knew that he had returned to his old (and better) writing style from page 140, where Bradbury puts in this wonderful speech about burning. It goes like this, “He saw the moon low in the sky now. The moon there , and the light of the moon caused by what? By the sun, of course. And what lights the sun? It’s own fire. And the sun goes on, day after day, burning and burning. The sun and time. The sun and time burning. Burning….The sun and every clock on the earth. It all came together and became a single thing in his mind….He knew why he must never burn again in his life.

“The sun burnt every day. It burnt Time. The world rushed in a circle and turned on it’s axis and time was busy burning the years and people anyway, without any help from him. So if he burnt things with the firemen and the sun burnt Time, that meant everything was burnt.

“One of them had to stop burning. The sun wouldn’t, certainly. So it looked as though it had to be Montag and the people he’d worked with until a few short hours ago.”

I really love this quote because it seems as though Montag realizes something so important and so fundamental in one moment. Exactly like an epiphany. I also like this image of the sun burning Time (with a capital T, note). I just think that it is beautiful.

I think that part of this transformation in Montag is illustrated by the transfer from a cityscape to nature (as Mr. Janna said on his “blog”). As he is allowed to float along this river in a sort of “down time while on the run, he thinks about a farm he visited as a child and what it would be like to stay at a farm he passes. As the landscape becomes less…aggressive, in a way, so do Montag’s thoughts.

I’m not saying that Montag suddenly is remade by the shift from city to country, I’m just saying that as he changes, so does the landscape. I think that this is a tool that writers use all the time. I have noticed that in most books, rain and gloom accompany the characters bad moods, however, when they are having a picnic, or frolicking in the park, it’s all sun and happiness. Sometimes, you don’t even realize it.

The last interesting thing that I would like to bring up is how the old men reintroduce themselves after Montag has discovered that they carry books around in their heads. For example, the leader says that he is Plato’s “Republic”. I just thought that was interesting, did anyone else catch that?

So long my fair friends.
I shall add this as a sort of postscript. Mr. Janna left a very interesting comment on my “blog”, a copy of it follows, in response to my post saying that this book has all the answers. Here is what he said:

“If this book holds all the answers, then what are the questions? Does literature give us answers to questions? What does literature "do" anyway?

In response, this is what I have to say. Mr. Janna,

Do there have to be questions to be answers? Can you not simply find out more about the human race by reading?

I think that literature holds all the answers. No matter what your question, you can find it's answer in a book. I think that this is something that most people in this era have forgotten. Internet has a lot of the answers. If I need to know, quickly, who it was who used the silk road, or why boats float, I too will turn to the interent. But there are things that you simply cant find there. In no single medium is human nature convayed as well as in books.

So what are the questions? There are no questions. Only answers for those willing to seek them out.

Fahrenheit 451 pp. 125-137

Hello (I have run out of creative introductions and so will return to the old stand by).
I have to say that this is probably my least favorite section of the book so far. Not because nothing happens, a lot of stuff does, but because it’s not written in a very artful way, like the rest of the books is. In a way, this part is written very plainly. I have noticed that since the death of Clarisse, things don’t seems as beautiful, in terms of how things are written and the way the world is portrayed.
Of what was written in this section I think that my favorite part was when Montag was speaking to Mrs. Black in his thoughts on page 129. He says, “Mrs. Black, are you asleep in there?...This isn’t good, but your husband did it to others and never asked and never wondered and never worried. And now since you’re a fireman’s wife, it’s your house and your turn, for all those houses your husband burnt and all of the people he hurt without thinking…. Goodnight, Mrs. Black.”
This, I think, is very powerful. It really shows something. Montag was one of those people. The kind of fireman who burnt, loved it, and never thought about all of those people that he was hurting. He never asked, never wondered and never worried. And then his house was, much as the Black house is. So in a way, it is vengeance, but I don’t think that Montag stopped to think about how like his own life the whole scenario was.
The other reason I like this is because it is one of the only beautiful pieces in this section. The other one, I think, would have to be the line, “Wisps of laughter trailed back to him with the blue exhaust from the beetle.” This is a great image, as is the one later about him saying something very loudly in his head.
Other than these spots, I think that the writing is almost drab in this section. Having read slightly ahead, though, I know that it picks up again with a wonderful passage about burning on page 140. Until I can write something about that…
…Goodbye.

Fahrenhiet 452 pp. 110-125

Hi.
This section mainly involved the discovery that Mildred was indeed behind the report on Montag and the burning of his house. During the burning, Montag murders captain Beatty, “kills” the hound and threatens other members of the firehouse.
My favorite sentence from this part was the line, “There was a crash like the falling parts of a dream fashioned out of warped glass, mirrors and crystal prisms.” that was on page 114, second-to-last paragraph.
I like this image that is created here because you really get this feeling of broken dreams. I feel like I can almost hear the tinkling of broken crystals falling in a heap. I think that is one of the reasons that it is so wonderful. It also creates this image of a broken mirror where everything looks strange, though moments before, it had seemed so familiar, I know you know the feeling. And last, I like it because of the hopelessness that it carries. I can feel the despair as everything that he knew comes crashing down at his feet, I can feel the shards of his dreams, because the description is so good.
I am really sorry that this is so short, Mr. Janna (cough, cough, I hope you’re reading this) gave us far too much homework tonight.
Bye!

Fahrenhiet 452 pp. 91-100

Good day (see, I am thinking of new, creative greetings).
This was a really great, interesting section because Montag was so utterly betrayed by Mildred. She was so worried about her own appearance, that she called the firehouse on him. I was so surprised that anyone could be so uncaring and heartless. They were marries for a long time, they lived in the same house, and Montag obviously thought something of her, even if it wasn’t love. I was just so surprised.
The two most important scenes in this part of the novel, I think, are the scene in the parlor in which Montag reads the poem “Dover Beach” (which is a real poem by Mathew Arnold) and the scene in the Firehouse with Captain Beatty.
In the parlor, Montag gets so angry at the shows—the drivel—that his wife and her friends are watching that he reads them a part of “Dover Beach”, a poem from a book that he stole. He does it to show them how textureless their shows are with their screeching tires and screaming voices. This is important because I think that it is the main event that causes Mildred to turn him in. Mildred, more than her friends, seems to be shocked by this open show of disobedience to the law. She is more worried about how this act will reflect on her than she is about Montag getting caught.
I personally think that this scene is interesting (especially to my little decline of civilization theory) because Mildred leaves him so easily. She has friends that are on their third husband. She just doesn’t love him. I think that we are getting to a stage like that already. My parents are divorced and my father is remarried. I know that I am not the only one in that situation.
The second important scene, the one in the Firehouse, was after Montag goes back to work; turning in the book he stole (or a substitute) to captain Beatty. At first, the captain seems ready to let it go, but as they are playing cards, he brings up a dream he allegedly had. In it he was having an argument with Montag. Montag was spewing literature, and Beatty was quoting back.
This is important, I think, because it shows that Beatty actually knows a lot of literature. He knew the quote that the dying woman said, and he was able to fuel a whole dream filled with quotes. Obviously, he has read some of the books that he is burning.
I am really curious about what is going to happen next. I know that Montag’s house will be burned, but I’m not sure what he is going to do after that, now that he is out of a job, a home, and all of the books he stole. There are a lot of questions to be asked.
My favorite passage from this section, however, is the third-to-last paragraph on page 101, that starts with “‘Go home.’ Montag fixed his eyes on her…” It really emphasizes the unhappiness of the people in this reality and I think that is one of the most interesting themes in this book. Mrs. Bowles has this past, these three husbands and children that hate her, and so she immerses herself in these “parlor games”, but perhaps this is the cause of her unhappiness. “The salamander swallows it’s own tail,” Faber says. The beginning, the cause, circles around to meat the end, the effect and make on continuous circle until you don’t know what is the beginning, what is the cause, and what is the end, what is the effect.
Though this is a great metaphor, I think that my favorite is something Faber says on page 83 (it’s a little before our reading for tonight, I know, but is my favorite). He says, in paragraph two that if you were to put a book under the glass you would see life, teeming there across the pages in “infinite profusion”. I just think that is the most wonderful idea, partially because I believe that it is true. I said in my post on January the 21, that humans don’t like to look at their own ugliness. Books are so alive that it shows humans something they don’t want to see. I think that was the best metaphor, possibly in the whole book. In general, Faber has wonderful lines.
Good day (isn’t it cool how that can be used as a greeting and a dismissal?).