Where Did it Go?

Hello everyone. I am just posting this to show you guys that I did check the blog, but there was nothing to blog about. See you at class!

-Elijah Lewis

Pacifism

     What is pacifism? Pacifism is defined as "opposition to war or violence of any kind". It is only practiced by few and the world is need of more, now than ever before. I myself am not a pacifist nor do I know any. They are breed to come across, but there has been a few very influential pacifists is the past. Such as: Jesus, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King jr., Mahandas Ghandi and Henry Dunant. These people all "fought" for a cause without actually fighting. They believed non-violence was the answer to the current problem that plagued the world, in each of their respective eras. And for the most part, their plans worked. Pacifism have answered problems in the world before, and I believe that it can once more.

What is a Pacifist?

     On all of the definitions, pacifist means strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war. there were small variances, but they all meant the same thing. People who are opposed to violence, and therefore do not participate in it. Non violence means abstention from violence as a matter of principle. You agree that both of these terms have great similarities, yes? Pacifists are the embodiment of non violence. now here is the tricky part, are pacifists people who do not believe in unnecessary violence, or all violence? If a pacifist is the first, then I could be classified as one, but if it is the latter, I am most definitely not a pacifist. I do not have a violent disposition, but I am willing to resort to violence to protect myself and those I love. There are definitely different levels of non violence and pacifism, but the purest form of both has serious moral issues. They will refuse to fight for themselves in a dangerous situation, and will not protect an innocent man being attacked or killed. This absolute pacifism is not only dangerous to the individual, but it can also be dangerous to those around them. Maybe violence is wrong in a perfect world, but ours is far from it since pacifism believes in the goodness of human nature even thought the past has proven time and time again that human nature can be just as cruel as it can be kind.

The Melians

The google definition of a hero is "a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities". I believe the Melians were heroes because they refused to submit themselves to the Athenians without a fight. They did not ask for war, but offered peace and seeked to avoid the destruction of lives, standing up for what their freedom. They courageously attempted to overcome a mightier Athenian Army, rather than submit to slavery. The Melians were heroic for attempting to do what the Athenians perceived as impossible.

Melians vs Athenians

            In my opinion the Melians are neither heroes nor fools. They posed a very logical and ethical argument, given the choice between slavery and death they chose to fight, however this does not make them heros it makes them brave. While I was reading the story I had thought for a moment that the Athenian representatives had created an argument that both appealed to as well as threatened the Melian magistrates enough to have them submit to the rule of the Athenians. However the Melians were able to counteract their opposition with a similarly threatening argument, planting the seed fear that the mighty Spartan General Brasidas could invade their mainland, this gave the Athenians something to think about as they prepared their invasion. While I don’t think the Melians are heroes for opposing their oppressors they certainly weren’t fools given how they went about counteracting the Athenian representatives.

Utopia

Freud was of the opinion that war had been woven into the fabric of humans since the dawn of time. He said that, in the beginning, "conflicts of interest between men [were] settled by the use of violence" where the strongest man, or "the one who had the better weapons or who used them the more skilfully, would win (8-9). He went on to explain that a group consensus became stronger than the will of the individual. Freud would also say that "human instincts are of only two kinds:...'eros'...and...the aggressive or destructive instinct" (12). Freud did not believe that the human race would ever stop warring, and would continue to be a community vs. community world.
Unfortunately, I agree with Freud, although not necessarily for the same reasons. The world is full of people smarter, wealthier, healthier, etc. than others. Because of these differences, and others like faith and moral differences, I do not believe that the human race will ever create a utopia that satisfies the needs of everyone. In my mind, attempting a 'perfect world' is unrealistic, and your time would be better spent improving the lives of others; not making them 'perfect'. But back to the topic, because humans are undeniably flawed and have varying views on what is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, fair or unfair, we will never stop fighting to spread our own views throughout the world. People are filled with so many conflicting differences I do not believe we will ever be able to create a global community and end war entirely.

Freud PAPER and Thucydides BLOG

We'll try writing a paper this time and maybe have more luck with answering the question!  Your assignment this week is two fold.

1.   WRITE A MINIMUM 2 PAGE PAPER (MLA FORMAT) ANSWERING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.   In the first part of this paper, you are analyzing the text. You must actually site the reading from Freud when you are answering the question.   You must actually have at least one quote from the reading, but you can have more to make your point.  I want you to reference the page where you found the quote.   This will allow the reader to find what you are talking about more easily.   This first part does not have to do with your opinion.   THEN, after you have analyzed what Freud is telling us, you will agree or disagree with him.   This is where you use your own opinion.

• Why, ACCORDING TO FREUD, don't communal feelings and emotional ties succeed in preventing war?    And do you agree or not with this, and why.
• Why does FREUD emphasize that an inclination to violence for its own sake - rather than poverty or injustice - is the true cause of war?  And do you agree or not with this, and why. (yes - this is a repeat of last week's assignment, but since no one answered it.....)
• What does FREUD says happens to the aggressive instinct when people unite to form a lawful society? And do you agree or not with this, and why.

2.   BLOGGING FOR THE MELIAN DIALOGUE

 For this part of the assignment, please blog a minimum of one paragraph on this question.  This is an opinion blog.  You do NOT need to provide quotes from the reading unless you want to.

• Are the Melians fools or heroes for refusing the Athenian offer. 

Special notes:
This is how you should refer to a quote using MLA formatting:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/03/

Short quotations

To indicate short quotations (fewer than four typed lines of prose or three lines of verse) in your text, enclose the quotation within double quotation marks. Provide the author and specific page citation (in the case of verse, provide line numbers) in the text, and include a complete reference on the Works Cited page. Punctuation marks such as periods, commas, and semicolons should appear after the parenthetical citation. Question marks and exclamation points should appear within the quotation marks if they are a part of the quoted passage but after the parenthetical citation if they are a part of your text.
For example, when quoting short passages of prose, use the following examples:

• According to some, dreams express "profound aspects of personality" (Foulkes 184), though others disagree.

• According to Foulkes's study, dreams may express "profound aspects of personality" (184).

• Is it possible that dreams may express "profound aspects of personality" (Foulkes 184)?

When short (fewer than three lines of verse) quotations from poetry, mark breaks in short quotations of verse with a slash, ( / ), at the end of each line of verse (a space should precede and follow the slash).

• Cullen concludes, "Of all the things that happened there / That's all I remember" (11-12).

You must also have a Works Cited page at the end.   This will be a very simple Works Cited, but good practice.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/12/
http://info.easybib.com/mla-citations-basics-all

Freud vs Me

     I believe Freud emphasizes that tendency to violence is the true cause of war because: throughout history the one custom that is universal between almost all cultures, is war. Freud is accredited with the creation of the psychoanalytical method of psychology. The main idea behind this method was that the brain is like an iceberg. What we see on the surface is just a small fraction of the whole. With the surface representing conscious thought and the rest being subconscious and unconscious. With this method he could prove almost any theory with the simple statement of "It's an unconscious thought." Although, I do not believe he was intentionally trying to say so. He was merely stating his opinion on the subject. With this mentality I believe he was thinking that violence is an unconscious or subconscious instinct.

     I disagree with this theory. In my opinion violent tendencies are placed in someone through their upbringing. I believe that everyone is born as a blank slate. But do to the state of the world and that of previous generations some people are brought up to know violence. This, however, is not the fault of any one person. This has been forged through many generations. When societies weren't as civilized people sometimes had to resort to violence to protect themselves.

Now a question I have is: Do you think we can change?

Violence - Asher

     Violence is human nature, and I believe Freud was emphasizing that because no matter what great lengths humanity goes too to prevent violence it simply can't happen. I don't believe that Freud thought that poverty or injustice wasn't the cause of a single war, however I do believe that Freud thought that the violence that naturally occurs in humans was the cause of more (Page 2, Paragraph 3). Even as illogical as it is, violence for its own sake is just what humanity knows, fight now, think later, an unfortunate thought process used by most of the world. It appears that Freud was aware of this and was trying to make all who read this aware as well.

     Violence for its own sake is violence without a reason. If someone performs a violent act just for the sake of performing, it is unjustifiable. It is impossible to defend a heinous crime without a reason, for example, if I were to stab Jeremy with a sword and my response to being asked why is "because I felt like it" I would be idiotic. My response wouldn't hold up in a court of a law, in fact I would probably be considered mentally ill. Violence is one of the many pitfalls in the human mind, and without reason it is simply illogical.

This is our last week on Freud, until we come back again for our project on Why War?     For this week, let's have Jeremy and Asher post by Sunday, and everyone else respond to them by Tuesday.   The question is:

Jeremy and Asher:
Why does Freud emphasize that an inclination to violence for its own sake - rather than poverty or injustice - is the true cause of war?   AND - do you agree with this or not, and why?    This is a minimum of 2 paragraphs; one on Freud and one on yourself.

Everyone else:
Is there anything else that supports Freud's emphasis on the cause of war being our own violent nature that Jeremy or Asher did not include in their paragraph?   AND, do you agree with that premise from Freud, and why?    Again, this is two paragraphs.

I would like you to site passages from Freud's letter when responding to the first question with the page and the paragraph number (page x, paragraph y).

Next week we will watch a short part of Hotel Rwanda, and talk about genocidal conflicts and non genocidal conflicts outside of WW2 and the factors that led to these conflicts, and then move into The Melian Dialogue.  

I think we want a leader who is logical and empathetic. A completely empathetic leader might not be able to make the 'tough' decisions that come with war, but on the same token a completely logical leader would mostly likely not make a decision that would be considered 'heroic' if it was not a logical decision. The decision by President Truman to drop the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima could potential be seen as logical and empathetic. Logical, because it seemed to be the quickest way to end the war and empathetic, because it would, statistically, save more lives than it destroyed.

Apathy or Empathy?

     In war, decisions have to be made. Decisions that could mean the salvation of a country, or it's ultimate destruction. Sometimes there aren't any right choices, only the lesser of the two evils, and even then the choice is not often clear. To make the right choice for the greater good, you have to put your personal feelings, pride, and sometimes morals aside and take a completely unbiased standpoint. When you are in a war, sometimes the decisions you make will give your own country a positive or negative view of yourself. You can be the hero, or the cruel general who does not know mercy.
     But there are other times when emotion can be of use. When an entire nation unites under an emotion and a cause, they can be a near unstoppable force. Soldiers that have families back home supporting them fight all the more aggressively. Citizens that support the soldiers donate money to military funds. Generals have a reason to win the war. The President has another way to use his power for good.
    Both ways are effective, but I honestly don't know which one is the best answer. Maybe you need a bit of both to come out on top in a war.

-Elijah

Fabulous discussion today!    I am very impressed with your thoughts and willingness to wrestle with difficult concepts.

We decided to blog on this topic, presented by Elijah in class today:

In an aggressive war, is it better to approach decisions with logic only, or is it better for emotions to be involved?

Remember, there are no right and wrong answers, but we are working to think deeply about this topic, using our knowledge of history and our self reflections to come up with a response to this.

Megan and Elijah are to comment first - prior to SUNDAY.   Everyone else is to comment on their comments.   Please expand or question their initial thoughts.    We will resume this topic on Wednesday, and then move on to Thucydides.    There is no additional reading this week.   Adrian, there is no paper due this week, but there will be an assignment next week.    Happy blogging!

Intentions

Elijah.

You seem to be saying that the intentions of a person makes their desires, in this case violence, good or evil; two terms not easily defined. You say there are "ruthless psychopaths out there that are able to convince people to do incredible acts of evil" after you talk about Hitler and the Allies of WW2. Does this mean that dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a 'good' decisions because Truman's intentions were to prevent more deaths? I'm not criticizing, just asking. I don't understand. 

Why war?

     War is an inevitable action. It's something that can never be completely eradicated. Even the Bible states that there is a time for war, "Ecclesiastes 3:8 - A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace." War is a never ending rotation that will always occur.

Who is the Hero?

          To answer the question of whether war is good or bad, you have to choose a side in the war. During World War II, the Allies united against nations like Germany and Japan, nations that were planning to take control of the world and rule it with an iron fist. Most people on the Allies considered Hitler a heretic bent on eradicating the Jews, so they united against someone who they deemed evil. Hitler genuinely thought that he was a messenger from God and that he could cleanse the world of the unclean humans. Both sides of the war thought themselves as heroes, but was there really any? I believe that the Allies were the heroes because we rescued the race of the Jews from being completely exterminated, but I come from a biased stand point. I was raised to believe that discrimination was wrong, but it may have been acceptable back in those times. We think differently now than we did back then.
          And then there are the battles when no one handled the situation right. Pilgrims landed in America and exterminated any Native Americans who fought for their land, and the ones that surrendered were treated like animals. The Pilgrims were wrong by ripping the Natives' land away, but the Natives' should not have resorted to violence so quickly.
          It's sad to see all the lives lost in pointless wars. Wars that are caused by one person so that they can gain power or destroy others. No, I don't think that war would be necessary if everyone was kind and selfless, but there are ruthless psychopaths out there that are able to convince people to do incredible acts of evil, evil that must be put to an end. War is necessary in an imperfect world, to maintain freedom for our nation, to protect others from hostile forces, or to end an evil that has been left unchecked too long.
          War is a curse, but it is ours to bear,


-Elijah Lewis

Why War? Jeremy Sande

If I had to pick between war being inevitable or not, I would have to say it is inevitable. But to me, it is much more than just a simple yes or no question. You have to answer a couple of questions before making a final decision. “What causes war?” In my mind the short answer would be conflicts between people whether it be based on morals, ideas, or anything else. “What purpose does war serve?” There are many hypotheses on this topic, each one given by a different person. The only thing I have found universal among all of them is that war causes change. Whether or not this is good is based on the individual. “What will happen if war stops?” Through my experiences, I have found that most people would say something along the lines of a “The world would be a better place.” For me I believe that if war was eradicated the violence would be placed somewhere else thus solving nothing. The final questions references Why War? ”Is war a bad thing?” This is a question I can't find an answer to. The logic of it conflicts with my morals.

    After all of these questions, to me war may be eradicated but conflict is constant within the limits of humanity.

Jeremy

Why War?

I do not think that war is a part of the human condition. Humanity has found violence to be an effective way of dealing with conflict. In the times of ancient civilization there was glory and honor to be won and to be fought for. As Freud said “- in it’s present-day form war is no longer an opportunity for achieving the old ideals of heroism and that owing to the perfection of instruments of war destruction a future war might involve the extermination of one perhaps both of the antagonists.” Notice that Freud, a psychologist, stated that both combatants in an act of war are ‘Antagonists’.

Mankind as a member of the animal kingdom has an instinct located somewhere in their reptilian brain, that has programmed them to have an unpredictable need to assert their dominance on one another. This primal instinct and not war is a part of any human. I raise this question, when a human holds power over his peers for selfish reasons, is there an internal conflict taking place between the mind and the soul? If babies are born completely innocent capable of nothing more than learning and loving, that urge to take control over other human beings therefore must be an internal war with the purest most innocent part of your soul. This internal conflict results in the feeling when you know you are making a decision that could have a negative effect on you and the people around you.

Julian

     After reading your story for the second time I discovered, possibly, something you may not particularly like. Actually, I am pretty certain you are not going to like it at all. So here it is, you mirror your mother.
     The first and most obvious similarity centers around the suffering you both lived through. Your mother finds delight in her personal sacrifices, priding herself on her ability to give things up. You on the other hand, pride yourself on, and I quote, "In spite of going to only a third-rate college, he had, on his own initiative, come out with a first-rate college education; in spite of growing up dominated by a small mind, he was free of prejudice and unafraid to face facts," (156).  Here, you pride yourself on 'giving up' the easy life, where you could have gotten a third-rate education and a small mind.
     However, in your last bit you attempt to blur the definition of 'prejudice', perhaps to save yourself the shame of recognizing the similarity between you and your mother. Yes, you are free from your mothers prejudice against blacks, but you fill that empty spot with a prejudice against whites. A perfectly logical prejudice, but a prejudice just the same.
     So while you're recovering from you mothers death, I suggest you spend some time soul searching as well.

Megan

Dear Julian,

           You seem to be a smart person, but you aren’t treating your mother right. In fact, it seems to me that everything you do is out of contempt for her. I know that times are tough, but that is no reason to treat your own mother worse than a stranger. An argument every now and then is normal, but you are showing constant maliciousness towards her. You have got to remember that you only get on mother, and when you lose her you want to have the closure that you treated her well. I am afraid that you won’t have that closure, and when she does die, you’ll hate yourself for the rest of your life. Show your mother some kindness before it’s too late.

-thx,

Elijah

Pleasure in Darkness - Megan

While I agree with Elijah that the death of a loved one is bittersweet, I have a somewhat more 'pessimistic' view. In today's world teenage girls are constantly over-glorifying pain and depression. It has suddenly become 'cool' to be damaged and broken; some girls showing off cuts on their wrists like trophies, like the physical evidence of pain makes their pain superior. Girls fake a mental or eating disorder, just to grab attention where ever they can. Girls are seduced into finding a kind of sick joy in their unhappiness, because as 'one of the damaged' you can enter a community of broken girls all basking in their misfortunes; supporting each others recovery, but each not really wanting to leave the comforts of belonging to a group of people. It's disgusting that these girls are driven to the extreme of faking this kind of pain, just to receive the attention that all humans crave; and because of this girls and boys alike who desperately need help and comfort and kindness are denied these things since no one can tell if they are faking it. 


(Side note: Boys may be included in this too but frankly I haven't a clue what goes on in your bloody minds.)

Pleasure in Darkness - Elijah

Elijah's Post

I don't know if everyone will agree, but I think that the pleasure in sadness comes from love. You only cry when someone you care about has died. Maybe you feel pleasure that you knew someone that you loved enough to cry over. When my great grandma died, we were really sad for a long time, but we knew that she was in a better place. We also knew, with her suffering from Alzheimer's disease, that life was difficult because every day we saw her, years of her life were erased and she could barely remember any of us. It was only until the last week or so of her life that she completely remembered us and that was one of the few times I saw that she felt as if she was with her family. Sadness is bittersweet, but I like remembering the best of the people who passed on, freezing the moment they were at their happiest.

Pleasure in sadness - Asher

     I've never fully understood how someone could possibly find pleasure in sadness. Is it because them being sad provides them with the breakthrough they've been waiting for? Perhaps being sad is the only way that they can feel true emotion, and in turn that brings them pleasure. As i said I truly don't understand it and I may never do so. I suppose it's one of life's many unanswered questions.

9/11/13

Great conversation on Rothschild's Fiddle today!  NICE thinking you guys!   Here are some of the themes you came up with after our discussion:

• appreciate whet you have when you have it.
• pain can be consuming and blinding
• closing yourself to others hurts you more 
• you have to be able to forgive, even if it is forgiving yourself
• you cannot learn or grow from a painful experience if you stay in non-forgiveness of self
• try to see people's true character, not just what is on the outside
• to be the best version of yourself, surround yourself with people that help you to grow.

wow - that is great.

Here is what we are blogging on this week.   Because there is no additional reading, I expect well thought out paragraphs on this topic that you chose!

WHY IS THERE PLEASURE IN SADNESS??

happy blogging!

Rothschilds Fiddle - Megan

Megan's Post

I think that Jacob did not change his behavior towards his wife, even when she was a few days away from dying, because changing the attitude you have held for a lifetime is incredibly difficult, and takes time, determination, and a public acceptance of your past behavior. Jacob, close to his own death, did not see a profit in changing his attitude so late in the game, and therefore he did not change.

Rothschilds Fiddle - Elijah

Elijah's Post:

Jacob doesn't show Martha affection because he already has his heart occupied by greed. His life would have been worth something if he was kind, took care of his wife, and wasn't hostile to everyone who took a second to talk to him. I personally feel sorry for his wife who lived in terror of him in the 52 years she lived with him.

Welcome!

Welcome to Great Books at HuckleBerry!

We're going to use blogspot to talk about a weekly question that relates to our reading for the week.   Your blog answer can be long or short.   It's up to you!   But try to extend the conversation.   If someone submits one idea, don't just agree with it.  Extend the thought with your own ideas, supporting evidence, or why you disagree because of some experience or thought that you have.   This is JUST blogging, so you don't need to have all of your evidence and a thesis and all of THAT.   Let's just use this as a way to engage each other outside of class with some of the discussion that is going on.   Your blogging shouldn't take more than 30 minutes!

For our first conversation about Rothschild's fiddle, let's discuss the following question:

Why doesn't Jacob show his wife any affection, even after he knows she is dying?