Didactic Elegy
By: Hasani and Brigette





The poem Didactic Elegy came from a book Angel of Yaw. The book mainly talks about two struggling forces grief, and instruction. When we looked up what the title meant and broke it down into pieces it resembled types of literature demonstrated in art intended for instruction. It’s a poem intended to teach a moral lesson in this case (elegy) expressing sorrow in poem, or musical composition.
This poem opens up saying “intention draws a bold, black line across an otherwise white field”. This is him staring to draw his masterpiece. Saying that the eye holds the relevance what you see is what’s really happening. No one can make something that happened on September 11th up. It later states it’s easy to apply a continuous black mark on to a primed canvas. We feel it means that they had all that they needed to know on how to blow up the twin towers. With our help that they were able to know what kind of force and where they would need to hit the twin towers for them to go down. This is also true in art that if something’s already primed it’s easy to smear the lines. But it’s difficult to see what you’re going to add next to a painting without ruining what’s already there.
So why is that artwork showing death, but sets across a message is “charged with negativity”. Why is it not the subjects, but the object or in this case the bigger message that’s negative, why isn’t it the subjects who did it? The art in this is not only what the buildings stood for but also what it endured, how the crash of September is the “radical reevaluations [is the] masterpiece.” Not only was it the second time it happened but they also made sure to hit both of the towers to make sure the work of art is enduring all that is capable, otherwise it would be an unfinished masterpiece.
Why does the critic feel guilty to view this like a masterpiece? Yes it’s negative but when we think of masterpiece we think about not only the act but everything you needed to prepare to make it all come together. To make sure everything blends in well to make sure that your final piece is what you wanted. Otherwise then the artwork will be assigned a different value than what you intended. Why is it that you have to realize what you had, when its gone?
Can you imagine something even if it didn’t happen? When you think of the twin towers what do you think of first the event of the towers standing, or the events image of them collapsing? The eye of the beholder will tell you who were the hero’s? Should they be considered heros even if it wasn’t their choice to be in that situation? If they are heroes to you for going through what they had to endure, then why did they make that choice to jump out of the window? Why do heroes have to be the victims willing to risk their life to save someone else? The firemen, police, traffic guards, everyone trying to get the people to safety, they are the heroes but why should they go through such lengths to show what their capable of?

This is a picture and a link of one of the victims taking life into his own hands and jumping out the window with no regret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
Unless to be an American means to embrace one’s death. That’s what the president said, is this why we got attacked, look at who was leading our country at the time of war.
This is the clip of the president’s reaction to when he heard the news. (Scroll down and observe the picture of him reading with the kid)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/schoolvideo.html?q=schoolvideo.html
The first line is the starting point like his thesis statement. But then he reuses it two more times changing to meaning but also allowing you to finish the sentence. Showing you where he begins, but also leading you to the beginning is also where it ends. The poem allows him to ask questions, but also lets him tell the reader what’s the right answer. He repeats pieces of a line and reuses them to show a different meaning. Or he uses his word in the definition that he’s trying to explain to you, “The mere appearance of significance is significant.” He also repeats the epigraph on the first page “sense that sees itself is spirit”. He later restates it replacing " sense” and “ignorance”, and “spirit” and “elegy.”

This is further explanation of the elegy.
http://jacketmagazine.com/37/stone-freeman-re-lerner.shtml

Take precaution when viewing this, this is the video if the twin towers collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qddt-_zu4D0

Questions to consider:
Why did you think the author used the title “Didactic Elegy”?
Why do you think the author uses the Greeks to demonstrate meaninglessness, beauty, death and heroic?
Who do you think the author is referring to when uses “critic” and why does he refers to the critic as a “she”?
What does it takes to be a hero? Who do you consider to be a hero and does the same image appears when you think about that person?
Did the people in the twin towers have an option to live or die and should they be considered as heroes?
What was your first reaction of September 11, 2001 and do you have any heroic remembrance of that day?
Can September 11, 2001 event be considered a masterpiece? If so then to whom?
How can people mourn by themselves when the media makes them relive the tragedy over and over again?
What is the first thing you visualize when the twin towers is mention? Should we remember the towers standing or the towers collapse?

 John Aquilino and Jazmine Lopez

 

Executors Of Important Energies by Wells Tower

 

For everyone out there who was a little confused when they finish reading this essay it is okay. “Executors of Important Energies,” is not a conventional essay and Wells Tower is far from a conventional writer. There may not see like there isn’t any messages in the essay but you must look a little deeper and we promise you guys will find something that speaks to you.

 

This essay comes from the book Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned which was written entirely by Wells Tower.

 

The beginning of “Executors of important Energies” starts off with a conversation between Burt and his stepmother Lucy. Lucy proposes that she come with Roger (Burt’s father) to come and visit New York. Burt clearly didn’t want him to come but Lucy kept insisting that he should.

Roger developed a disease that was like Alzheimers. He started to forget things like where he put his car or where his wallet was and it even got so bad that he forget whom his son and wife were. This caused a lot of tension within the house. It made things worse between Roger and Burt who didn’t have a close relationship to begin with and also with his wife Lucy.

Roger and Burt never had a close relationship. Burt lived most of his life in ambivalence over Lucy. When Burt was ten his father, Roger, married Lucy. Lucy was only twenty years old while Roger was forty-six. Burt always had this false hope that his father would turn over Lucy to him some day.

“I was sure that my father was only with her temporarily, that he planned to turn her over to me someday. I has a hunch that somewhere around my sixteenth birthday, he was going to take me out to a desert overlook where the sun was going down and announce that he was giving Lucy to me, along with his Mustang fastback, along with some Schlitz, and maybe a cassette tape that was nothing but “Night Moves” by Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band.”

Roger didn’t agree with Burt’s career choice, thought that being inventor was a waste of time in a way. He felt that Burt should be a lawyer, just like him. “Go to law school make a difference.”

 

 

 

http://www.bookslut.com/features/2009_04_014302.php

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/White-t.html

 

http://www.observer.com/2009/books/wells-tower-fiction-writer-looking-joy

 

 

 

 

Wells Tower is known for writing about “emotional turmoil” and about hard times.  This is something that really struck us. In all families there are issues and problems and there is no avoiding it. Wells Tower has a goal and that goal is to portray the crazy and sad emotions that we face as human beings.  He likes to go down the path of sadness because it allows deepness. You could easily read one of his stories and just think that its just some story but it runs a lot deeper than that. The whole point is to express high emotion through fiction stories. He does an excellent job of doing this in Executors of Important Energies.

 

Sadness can be a domino effect. Look how Lucy’s life went down the drain in a sense. Her dreams and wishes amounted to nothing. She eventually got to a point where she felt undesirable. Look at how the minute Dwayne gives a compliment she gets interested and her eyes light up. This is sad but it is true. When people get to a point in like where they feel so undesirable and worthless any type of attention will get them intrigued.

 

“Though I’d always sense something cheap and spiteful in my father’s righteousness- an easy way for him to put himself above the rest of us- he did win a lot of money for people who needed it. It’s probable true that my father did more good for people who needed it. The merry bigot before me now depressed me as deeply as anything I’d seen in his decline.”

 

Roger wasn’t a very noble man who cared about his family. It is obvious that even when Roger had his memory he was still arrogant and cared more about himself and pride that anyone else His actions were done solely for his personal satisfaction. He preaches about being a lawyer and “making a difference,” but he did it because it was a challenge and winning cases made him believe he was better than everyone else.  Why do you think Roger smacks his Burt when he is close to beating him in chess? This was because he couldn’t stand for that feeling of defeat. This is the reason that Burt snaps back at his father when he tells him, “Go to Law School. Make a difference. Burt responds back preaching about how he does make a difference by creating goods to give mankind more convenience. Burt states, “ Dad, we’re the executors of important energies, the same stuff that builds nations….”

He did this as a sign as of resentment and hate of his dad’s self absorbed attitude.  The next part that is sad yet true and this is the feeling that Burt feels toward his father Even though his father has this self righteous attitude and only cares about himself it still kills Burt to see his dad the way he is. We all know this feeling when it comes to family.

 

Another part of the essay that really reflects on real human behavior is when Lucy leaves Roger for another man. Roger suddenly warms up to his son.  It took Roger this to feel vulnerable and heart broken to put some effort into his relationship with his son. Ever has a friend that disappeared of the face of the earth when he or she got a bf or gf? How bout when that same bf or gf leaves them how they suddenly appear and want to talk and be your best friend again? The best is when they find a new Bf or GF and forget you again. When people get sad and vulnerable sadly they become more human. A big ego can be very unhealthy to a person.

 

Another subject to touch on is the beautiful sport of chess. For anyone who has every played chess knows that it is addicting and difficult. It is not an easy game of checkers. Some people apply the game of chess to life. It is a game that requires strategy and patience.

 

“You cannot play at Chess if you are kind-hearted”

(French Proverb)

 

This quote reminds me of Roger. Roger only seems to care about himself and the feeling he gets from winning and feeling better than people.

 

Roger likes chess because it gives him a challenge. Just like when he practiced law, he took on the harder cases. Dwayne (the man who Roger plays in chess) compares himself to a musician.  It is also important to note that Roger remembers chess moves yet he forgets his wife and son.

 

“Its better than life. In the world, there’s no such thing as a clean escape, if you follow me.”

 

Life is tough and everyone has their escapes from reality. Some people have a passion for writing and while their writing their troubles seem to go away. Some people love working out or playing a sport so that is their escape. If you pass by the players at Washington Square Park you will notice that there are a lot of men like Dwayne. You can tell that most of them don’t have a lot of money and that some are very poor. One thing we know for sure is that when these men are playing chess they are in the zone and it is the only thing on their mind. When you see them get a win and you see the pride on their face you can tell they feel on top of the world for that moment.

 

All in all, Wells Tower does a good job at portraying “emotional turmoil” and sadness through his work.

 

The New York Times Book Review - Edmund White

Every one of the stories in Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned is polished and distinctive. Though he's intrigued by the painful experiences of men much older than he is, Tower can write with equal power about young women and boys; about hell-raising, skull-bashing ancient Vikings and an observant housebound old man of the 21st century, even about a cheerful, insouciant pedophile. His range is wide and his language impeccable, never strained or fussy. His grasp of human psychology is fresh and un-Freudianizing.

 

 

Wells Tower understands feelings of sadness and his “grasp of human psychology” is amazing. This was not the easiest reading in terms of analyzing and a clear message but I strongly believe that everyone takes something different from this essay. This essay may require a certain lens and reading of a couple times but it is a fine piece of literature. There are many strong emotions embedded in this essay.

 

The ending had me a little confused when I first read it but for some reason we felt a sense of peace after reading it. It kinds of reminds of when things are crazy and everything is going wrong and that one little thing happens and it gives you a little peace and happiness and you have no idea why.

 

Questions:

 

1.    How do you feel about Burt’s relationship with his father?

2.     Do you think that Burt was jealous of his father at all?

3.     What struck your attention about this reading? Which emotion in this essay caught your attention?

4.     What were you instant reaction when reading this essay?

5.     Personally we got a sense of peace at the end with “Land of Charm,” did you guys feel the same way?

6.     Does anyone see a connection between Roger playing chess and him being a lawyer?           

 

 

 

Homeschooling and Self-Education

Homeschool per Merriam-Webster:
: To teach school subjects to one’s children at home

In Homeschooling and Self-Education, the author is stating the positive outcomes of homeschooling and self-education, and how it has benefit many individuals. In his perspective, people who are homeschool are the ones that want to control their own education. He also mentioned a few examples of individuals who has succeeded from homeschooling and self-education.

“Anna Fritz quit school when she was 15. She was a straight A student on her way to becoming class valedictorian at the School of the Arts in Milwaukee. Instead of taking music, she played professionally and studied with a renown cello teacher at University of Wisconsin at Madison. Instead of taking science, she apprenticed with a botanist at a museum greenhouse. Instead of taking English, she joined a critique group of professional writers. Instead of taking art or business, she worked at a photography studio. Instead of taking social studies, she worked as the organizer for Peace Action Milwaukee and represented the organization at the national meetings in Washington, D.C.”(63)

Fritz gave up on her education and title of valedictorian to choose a different path to live her life. She didn’t’ follow the school curriculum, but she choose whatever classes she desired.

Don’t you wish you were able to disregard rules and do whatever your heart desires?

Wise Intelligent commented, “…homeschooling is the best way,…I’m not saying school is all bad; you can learn anywhere, but if I had been home schooled, I would probably be an archeologist right now. I would be in Egypt. I would be all over the world, analyzing evidence from tombs and setting history straight.”(73) Intelligent is a members from a hip hop group from Trenton. Their music is motivated by the teachings of “the Nation of Gods and Earths.”

Do you think he would have become an archeologist if he was given the opportunity to be homeschooled?

Homeschooling Vs. Public Education

Homeschooling

Pros
· Homeschooling gives the child more educational freedom. The kid studies and learns what he wants.
· Physical freedom is another pro for homeschooling. Life does not revolve around car pools, school timings and exams.
· For the child, homeschooling provides emotional freedom. The child does not need to deliver to the evil effects of peer pressure, competition and bullies. They can study at peace.

Cons
Homeschooling can take up a lot of time of the parent. Leading to an acute time restraint for the parents. Picture a kitchen table filled with books and no food cooked.
Homeschooling requires one parent to be at home full-time. This could lead to a financial restraint on the family. The income would reduce, while the expenditure would, almost, remain the same.

Public Education

Pros
· Public schools provide the kids with an opportunity to partake is great activities like theater and bands. All round development is easier in public schools.
· Public schools are funded. As such children studying in public schools have more opportunities and resources available to them.
· A child studying in a public school is exposed to the different types of people in the world. As such, it can be said that public school prepares an individual who can face the world with confidence.

Cons
· Peer pressure and bullying is a regular affair at public school. Non conformism and innovative thinking is not easily acceptable.
· There are too many varieties of students studying at public schools. As such the parents do have much control over the kids their children get along with.

Additional info can be found here
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/homeschooling-vs-public-school.html


Statistics

· There are approximately 2 million homeschooling children in the US (2008 - 2009 data).
· An estimated 1.5 to 2 million homeschooling students in 2008 - 2009 are from standard K to 12.
· 15% of Non-Hispanic population is homeschooling their children.
· When scaled on a demographic map, homeschooling parents are from a variety of families and income levels including PhDs, atheists, low, high and middle income families.
· Near about US$ 50,000 is the income level of a homeschooling family.
· Almost 74% of homeschooled children have gone to colleges as compared to 44% of general population.
· 71% of homeschooled children have been found to be involved in at least one community service as compared to 37% of general population.

Based on the statistics, why is there an increase of children being homeschooled?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/homeschooling-statistics.html


This graph shows multiple reasons why children are pulled out of the public school system and put into homeschool.

http://www.babydustdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Untitled-Image.png



Self Education

Autodidact per Merriam-Webster:
: A self-taught person


Education is knowledge and experience you acquire despite on how they were accomplished or achieved. There are many approaches to learn and formal schooling is just one method. There is no wrong or right answer to the issue of self education or formal education being better. Formal education is important in the beginning as you build your foundation from learning to read, write and talk. In self education you can pursue knowledge that motivates you to learn. Generally many people stop reading a book after they graduate, however it doesn’t necessarily mean you should stop pursuing knowledge. People who know how to educate themselves are able to gain information about their world, read between the lines that media and school systems offer us.

A video on Ray Bradbury’s view on self-education. He talks about how he doesn’t believe in high school and college education because a library can educate you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhMSZB9CRs


Famous people who were self-educated

Abraham Lincoln
Edgar Allen Poe
Robert Frost
Malcolm X
Ray Bradbury
Steve Jobs
Bill Gates

Quotes to explore:

“…self- directed education is the essence of learning whether or not kids are in school.” (65)

“Homeschooling is about learning from everyone, from the janitor, from the woman behind the meat counter. Homeschooling is a mislabeling of what is in reality world learning.” (70)

“Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune. – Jim Rohn”

Questions to consider:

What is one thing you had learned in school that you couldn’t have learned on your own?

Do you think the views of homeschooling have changed from the past few decades?

If you had a chance of being homeschooled, how do you think your life would turn out to be?

Would you want your future kids to be homeschooled? Why?

Do you agree that home schooling is “too white, too sheltered, and too boring”?

If you followed the 19 strategies to Self-Education, do you think you’ll be successful or become a failure?


Here is a silly humor to spice up the idea of homeschooling.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCO3OuIi00fFQAE3swQ3_PGP45KCv4yget7kkjZuwItC83qiw2vQ_Ljlw3ToxzLOWXC7KkytF2Tk0RGgHedT5Uw0gk1glCrjXJYLv7EwaB6PDD3KNgFXbBY7sIwvjsIgqB2z9d-Hl0fYWs/s1600-h/socialization.jpg

-Linda Maldonado & Sally Cao

Noam Chomsky's 9/11 and The Doctrine of Good Intentions & The Doctrine of Good Intentions

Michelle Mecca, Cristal Aniceto & Tarek Rahman

…In the Name of Democracy

"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves." Plato's Republic

It is undoubtedly part of our human nature to care for others, but have we gone too far? Throughout history, many mistakes have been made in the name of democracy. Vainly desiring to assist countries who haven't asked for help, America, for example, has a history that is dedicated to bringing democracy and independence to suffering peoples.

Democracy as defined by Webster’s dictionary is a form of government exercised either directly by the people, or through their elected representatives, and/or rule by majority, but what is explained by Chomsky is the polar opposite of what Is contained in that definition.

Question to focus on:

Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?

In 9/11 and The Doctrine of Good Intentions, Noam Chomsky is Calling for URGENT reaction (EXPLAINATION) to the “threat of another Hiroshima”, Chomsky’s BASES HIS ARGUMENT AROUND the main idea that:

“…Washington’s primary role in accelerating the race to destruction by extending its historically unique military dominance, coupled with policies of aggressive militarism, both in word and in deed, that are virtually an invitation to disaster.” All of those ideas directly in conflict with the goal of democracy.

Chomsky delves into the tragedy of September 11^th by exploiting historical evidence all supporting reasoning as to how/why September 11^th occurred; including Historical evidence from countries all over the map such as: Japan, Germany, England, and the United States. According to Chomsky, these countries all shared the same fate by blindly and forcefully offering “help” to people’s who did not have the resources to be helped, nor the desire to be helped in the ways deemed correct by the more powerful country.

Through Righteous exceptionalism, these countries took it upon themselves to take action to “selflessly bear[ing] the costs of bringing peace and justice to the world” by forcefully instituting changes to foreign people’s lives under the premises that they were taking the morally sound and justified actions.

The main idea that helped us understand the title and validate Chomsky’s argument is Wilsonian Idealism and sober realism, before taking action, one (a country) must base their action on noble intentions and one must realize the limitations of our good intentions. By working strictly under these premises, there is no room for error or exploitation of another human being for personal benefit.

The United States Government declared war on Iraq, but do we even know why? Was it because they had weapons of mass destruction? Because they had ties with Al Queda and 9/11? --- AFTER engaging in military action and finding out none of questions had a black or white answer, the president stayed in the war for reasons of spreading democracy and overthrowing a violent regime.

We can sit in long debates trying to justify any war, but to what extent can it be for the good of a nation and its citizens to go to war or become the target of war. Under Nazi rule, Germany caused horrific crimes against Jews in the name of “saving the world from ‘annihilation’ by the ‘indifferent mass’.” England ruled over India and China, justified in the name of bringing peace and justice. America justifies going to war in its philosophy by bringing democracy and independence.

Are all in the name of “Good intentions”?

An interesting blog posted by the self proclaimed “shrewd investigator” offers to put ALL of what Chomsky is saying into perspective using events occurring up to today’s date, and he also analyzes the historic quote from Plato’s Republic, showing how it still holds true thousands of years later. http://theshrewdinvestor.net/?p=426

Historical evidence some may have forgotten or do not know

1. Bosnia ; A war for the difference of religion… Which side to take? Could it have triggered 9/11 ?

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=1985

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/igniting-Bosnia.html

2. Somalia; For the good of the hungry? Somalia is a war that no one wants to touch...

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/us-wages-food-war-against-somalia

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7422

Questions to consider :

- Historically, do you believe aggression was portrayed as self-defense to promote conformity? Was this tactic successful and/ or temporarily successful for the aggressor?

- Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?

-Do you believe that democracy is beneficial enough to be forced onto historically un-democratic societies?

-Has the human race learned anything from our history, or are we doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes?

-Do you agree with Chomsky suggesting the educated class is to blame for war crimes/ should they be going to trial?

-Was Saddam Hussein really a defenseless target?

-Was the Vietnam war worth fighting for?

-Are the poor inherently ignorant?

-Who should pay for the death of so many innocent civilians/ will anyone ever pay?

Happiness After September 11

Welcome to the desert of the real!

Nathaniel Smith and Carolina Nunez


We were having some difficulties understanding what this reading had to do with 9/11. Zizek didn’t really delve into the 9/11 topic until the third section of the book which is not covered in this reading, but after doing some research and external reading I came across an explanation of this piece by Natasa Kovacevic, an English student at the university of Florida. If anyone is interested in understanding it better you can read this article athttp://www.politicsandculture.org/2009/10/02/the-obscene-underside-of-liberal-democracy-slavoj-zizek-natasa-kovacevic/

Happiness per Merriam-Webster:
: A state of well-being and contentment: a pleasurable or satisfying experience

Happiness After September 11, when reading this title our minds automatically start traveling across a path full of nothing but pain, sadness, hopelessness and of course vengeance!!! Nevertheless, as we read this article we found ourselves being informed; within many other things, about happiness, Fascism and The Land Before Time. Thus I recommend that when reading this article it is better for one to forget about its title and get ready for a reading full of randomness used to explain several topics throughout the article.

            In Happiness After September 11, Žižek creates a logical relationship between Happiness and Knowledge. To his opinion Knowledge is the seed of lack of Happiness; he explains that “knowledge ultimately makes us unhappy”. In a society where we are born and raised under the motto “Knowledge is Power” (at least in my case), this statement by Žižek creates controversy. How can knowledge lead to unhappiness when this one is consider to be power and power have (throughout history) lead to the happiness of the men and women who possess it? The statement is somewhat contradictory. Yet we do know that in many cases the curiosity of knowing have created major scars (emotionally/psychologically) in the lives of many of us.

            Think of knowledge and happiness and I’ll invite you to read about Sophocles, Oedipus the King. How is it possible that a story wrapped around knowledge falls into the genre of Tragedies? In Oedipus The King we find the main character; Oedipus, being submerged in unhappiness, shame and suffering after learning that he was the murderer of his father, husband and son to his mother and father and brother to his children. Before knowing the truth of his origin, Oedipus happily ruled the city of Thebes as its king, made great love to his wife Jocasta and showed pride for his children.

“Curiosity killed the cat”. Perhaps if the cat didn’t want to know it would have still be happy and alive Or perhaps the cat would have just been sadly alive being that its anxiety of knowing was never eradicated by trying to learn. Can happiness after 9/11 be accomplished by just ignoring the past events? To my opinion being more informed about this tragedy is the only way in which the people in this society will be happy or content. Resisting the knowledge of the background information carried by the attacks of September 11 only allows for this society to draw irrational conclusions and commit inhumane actions like the torture cases that have emerged after the attacks. 

Zizek wrote that knowledge ultimately makes us unhappy and that every true progress in knowledge comes with a painful struggle. He says, as humans we have an attitude to say we don’t want to know about it but I do not agree with him here because I do think there are really true happiness out there. I do admit there are a lot of wrongs in the world and truths that we do avoid because it is hard to understand and painful to hear but not all truths are eventually negative. Knowledge could also be seen as the ultimate road to happiness, a person without knowledge can never be successful in life and the more knowledge you have the better you will be if you are using the knowledge gained for good. Zizek talks about Huntington chorea gene; he talks about 9/11, and made references to many negatives that will knowledge brings. He uses sad and bad things to argue his case about happiness but he is completely one sided on the topic.
In the movie references that were made about spouse knowing their mates are cheating but chose to stay quiet in order to make them happy. Zizek argues that this knowledge made them unhappy but one could argue that if they were unhappy they would leave and they chose to stay because of their ultimate happiness. I know some people would say they may have stayed for money or status in life but what if that’s what makes them happy then that is the real reason one would be staying. Whatever views you have on this argument, it can be argued that truth does lead to happiness.

Here you can see Zizek explain happiness and what he think is wrong with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqhWiohr_gQ

Here are some questions that Carolina and I discussed and may not agree on. We would like for you to way in and give us your opinions.

Can truth lead to unhappiness? Would you want to know the truth if it’s going to make you unhappy?

Zizek states “resistance is the norm today”, do you agree? Can you resist happiness? And if yes, does resisting happiness make you happy or content?

Can we agree with Zizek? Or can we say that happiness cannot be destroyed by knowledge?

Would you want to know when you are going to die? And why?

If you don’t want to know when you are going to die, as in the case of the genetic disease. Would you take the test to know if you have it? Would you want others to know and keep in from you?

Would you take your child's life at the start of horrible pain to save him/her from the pain?

Is it honest ignorance or reputation that the German mayor killed himself?

Is suicide bravery or cowardess?

Would you take 1 life to save 1000 lives?

Sebastian: Friend or Dinner?

Linda Hidary & Lillian Zami

Though Judaism does not permit the consumption of shellfish we must say that we secretly have a desire to taste lobster (especially after reading the beginning of the article). Just because something may taste delicious do we all of the sudden forget to have a heart? Or, why does wanting to eat an animal categorize us as immoral.

Throughout the article the author is debating with himself as to whether or not it is immoral to eat lobster. He battles on one side that it is ok and we are not evil people for eating lobster and on the other hand he just can’t seem to rationalize it.

The author tries to emphasize that the lobster being killed is specifically being killed for you. As though you are initiating his death sentence. But is it when the lobster is already caught, if I don’t chose to eat lobster the next person will?

People try to moralize lobster killing by saying lobsters don’t feel pain, or do not have the same nervous system as we do but how can you say that that is true when the lobster thrashes around in the pot?

“Let’s acknowledge the questions of whether and how different kinds of animals feel pain and is it justifiable to inflict pain on them in order to eat them. Turns out these questions are extremely complex and difficult.”

In the novel Julie and Julia by Julie Powell, Julie goes into detail about her struggles killing the lobster every time the recipe called for lobster. She calls killing the lobster a “crime conglomerate” (Powell, 151). She spent the time the lobster was cooking in another room. For someone who appreciates food and makes food her life project she has a hard time imagining this live thrashing lobster as food.

Powell, Julie. Julie & Julia - 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen. New York, New York: Back Bay/Little, Brown & Co., 2009.

The author claims pain is a totally subjective mental experience that it can’t be measured or communicated considering animals can’t speak. What do you think? Would you say animals could feel pain just as severe as humans can or do humans and animas have different thresholds for pain?

Is eating meat different than eating a lobster since the meat wasn’t slaughtered specifically for you rather it was slaughtered to feed a few hundred people?

“It is, at any rate, uncomfortable for me and for just about anyone I know who enjoys a variety of foods and yet does not want to see herself as cruel and unfeeling.”

We don’t like to believe that because we do indeed eat meat we are horrible people. We feel the need to rationalize our meat eating by saying it is okay animals are meant to be eaten.

“For those gourmet readers who enjoy well prepared and presented meals involving beef, veal, lam, pork, chicken lobster etc. Do you think much about (possible) moral status (probable) suffering of the animals involved?”

Do you ever think about what you eat before you eat it?

Sandor Ellix Katz says in his article

“I love meat. The smell of it cooking can fill me with desire, and I find its juicy, rich flavor uniquely satisfying. At the same time, everything I see, hear, or read about standard commercial factory farming and slaughtering fills me with disgust.”

Is it fair to have this dual vision concerning meat? Shouldn’t we choose one side over the other?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/142638/the_trials_of_being_a_conscious_meat_eater_/?page=entire

"Burning Bright;" Fire, and Looking Ahead

“Burning Bright” is the final chapter of Fahrenheit 451, and marks the complete rebirth of Montag, the firefighter who obeyed the twisted norms of society reborn into the free thinker enlightened by the wisdom of books. The title can take a literal meaning of describing the fire Montag uses to scorch Beatty and the mechanical hound, a metaphorical meaning of how brightly Montag’s new persona shines against the person he once was, or even a contextual meaning to refer to the symbolic Phoenix described by Granger at the end of the novel. Regardless of the interpreted meaning, the recurrent symbol of fire plays a role in most understandings of Fahrenheit 451’s themes and motifs.

Fire, and its multiple meanings.

Fire is the one symbol of the novel that, depending on the event, changes meanings. Bradbury employs the various meanings of fire to outline Montag’s dynamic characterization and to thematically address what is “right” and what is “wrong” in the novel. The ideas of good and evil were discussed in the last class, and there are multiple interpretations of what exactly can be considered evil or not. Fire, in “Burning Bright,” is described using unique adjectives that changes meaning constantly as the chapter progresses. Bradbury illustrates fire with “a great nuzzling gout of fire leapt out” and as “a gift of one huge bright yellow flower of burning” to describe the flames used to destroy Montag’s house, as “a shrieking blaze,” and “writhing flame,” when he turns the flamethrower on Beatty, and as a “bloom of fire, a single wondrous blossom” when he uses the flamethrower to destroy the mechanical hound. Bradbury carefully uses fire and it’s adjectives to describe what he believes is right or wrong, which can be seen in the destruction of Montag's house, starting with his bed to the parlors. Fire, in this event, is deconstructing the tenets of what made their utopian/dystopian society the way it was. Fire was referenced similarly as a blooming flower (a symbol of birth) when it destroyed the mechanical hound, another part of the society that Bradbury so abhors.
However, fire is described in a negative light when it destroys Beatty, which is “shrieking” and painful, which will be explained in a moment.

Dualism of fire; Dualism in society

As much as it was a prison to Montag, fire is also his salvation in “Burning Bright.” Following this line of fire having a dual nature, the three main characters also show dualism. Montag showed his duality at the very beginning, followed by Mildred, who despite her deep sadness within shows the same exterior that everyone else in the society shows, and finally, is shown by Beatty. Beatty is the captain of the firefighters, who are trained to erase books out of existance,and yet he secretly harbors a love for books. In the “Afterword,” Bradbury discusses Beatty more in depth, stating that his life was a “dream went sour” when the answers to his life problems (he had a very tumultuous childhood) were not found in the books he had loved so much. Beatty, showing the dualism motif so prevalent in the novel, is shown to be just as much a victim as the old Montag and Mildred (as well as the rest of society), and this is why the adjectives of fire at Beatty’s death did not illustrate the same beauty of “blossoms” and “nuzzling gout” as it did with the purely "evil" aspects of their society. Beatty death was even described by Montag, once he realizes what he had just done, as Beatty’s will. “Beatty wanted to die.” he thought, as he said Beatty insinuated his own death and forced his hand on the flamethrower.
In the final portion of “Burning Bright,” fire is given its soothing nature again. It is described by Montag, when he sees the vagabonds huddled around it, as “not burning... (but) warming.” In this case, fire was used to keep the men alive and warm, reinforcing Bradbury’s notion that fire should be used to preserve life, and not be used to destroy.


The Printing Press, New Technology, and the Future

People are reading less; that is the fact. But is it bad? Does it mean we are going to turn into society of people who are not able to think, like people in Fahrenheit 451? Or does it mean that, it is just a natural order of things? Hundreds years ago the books were invented, but may be now it is time for books to give way to other new sources of information?

Books, as we know them now, were not always as popular. Majority of people did not have access to any books at all till 15th century when the printing press was invented. Before, only few people from the upper class could afford handwritten books, and the invention of printing press was seen as “information revolution” because information became available to many more people. Besides, with printed books the information could travel faster and it could travel into different parts of the world at the same time. ( unlike the hand written books, which one would have to copy manually). However, as everything new, printed books were looked at with suspicion. In his article “Don’t Touch That Dial” about the new technology , Vaughan Bell writes that the famous philosophers of 15th century were afraid that the accessibility of printed books will cause “information overload”, “both confusing and harmful to the mind” . Bell also writes how everything, even a pencil went through the stage of being a “new technology”. (http://www.slate.com/id/2244198 ). So, it seems that more then five centuries ago people had the same concerns we have today. Just like we discuss Kindle nowadays and compare it to books, people used to discuss the printed books and compare them to the handwritten books. And guess what, many preferred the texture of the handwritten books over the machine printed versions.

Bradbury wrote his book about half a century ago so his fears mostly target the TV that just appeared at that time, but as you see, we still do not live in four TV walls. Now, with internet becoming more popular, people are more concerned about Web: for example in the cartoon WALL-E the future people represented as obese technology slaves who can not do anything (even walk) on their own, who fall in love and marry looking at their lap top screens and not at the people who are next to them. So, with every new technology new fears arise, but does it mean those fears will come true?

In the last chapter of Fahrenheit 451 the people who had knowledge kept their knowledge not in the books but in their heads. May be the author is trying to tell us that our own heads , and our own thinking ( if we think of course) is much more important then books, TV s, internet and other sources of information?

Questions to Consider

What are your overall views and opinions based on the analysis above? Do you agree/disagree with what was stated?

What do you think? Are we, people living in the 21st century are that different from people who were living 2 -3-5 hundreds years ago?
Do we feel less?
Do we think less?
Or is it just normal for us to exaggerate things when we compare ourselves to previous and next generations?

Do you agree that Beatty wanted to die? After reading the afterword, do you feel that the information neglected from the main (canon) story would have clarified the story or made it more interesting?

Do you agree with the idea that fire is given a "personality" by Bradbury? What do you think he is trying to say through the symbol of fire? Do you agree that fire is truly given varying roles to help influence the reader's thoughts on the current event in the chapter?