At first glance, the graphic rape scene in Blindness is out of place in the novel. It shocked me and caught me off guard. I had certainly not been expecting anything this atrocious. After class, as I was reading my paper, I read an article in the Times that struck me as very similar to what happened in Blindness.
Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has repeatedly denied that the Japanese military coerced women into sexual slavery during World War II. In actuality, this is documented history and there is plenty of evidence that suggests Abe and other Japanese politicians are simply covering up the ugly truth. The reports were initially submitted to the Tokyo war crimes trials way back in 1948. It took until the 1990s for many of the victims to come forward and share their stories. In 1993, Japan came as close as it has to a confession, admitting to having ran "comfort stations."
This connection struck me as even more relevant to our reading because the Japanese government is trying to keep the public blind to the truth. I think this is also an underlying theme in the novel. We as a society are blind to a lot of things because we don't want to face them. If we recognize these problems then there is a moral imperative to make changes. It reminds me of Galbraith's quote from The Position of Poverty: "We ignore it because we share with all societies at all times the capacity for not seeing what we do not wish to see."
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Oppression of Women
Beauvoir takes on not only the issue of male superiority in our society, but also tries to explain the cause of this discrepancy. I thought she made several interesting suggestions, and presented them in a cool, collected manner. Some of the issues she talks about affect more than just women, such as the identities, which one must choose from to define yourself. She offers women the choice between being the evil woman or the beautiful idolized woman. She can be the Praying Mantis or the conniving woman who seeks to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get her way. Or she can be the innocent, dumb, yet adorable goddess and mother figure. I find neither of these roles to be flattering or positive for women. Either she has no brain, or she uses her brain to manipulate. Other groups are given certain archetypes, which they may fill, be it the hard working migrant worker/illegal immigrant or the mafia member who has little explanation for where his fortunes come from. While I think this classification is changing and more and more people are breaking the stereotype, it is frustrating that such classifications are placed on each other because of our prejudices brought on by different appearances.
Beauvoir attributes the subordinance of women as being at the fault of men, but it is also partly the women’s fault as well because they accept this role until they do not even recognize themselves in the body they fill. Men always speak of the mysteriousness of women, which in many cases makes women even more desirable to men. I think this is because of the satisfaction that comes from dominating an unknown. Men do not make the effort to understand women, because it is not necessary to them. It is easier to dominate and makes laws that do not benefit, and may even harm, women if you can claim ignorance. Because of this, a slave-master complex has been formed. The ego of the male has been raised so high to consider themselves a gift to women. It is the man who grants the woman time, money, etc. for he is more busy and is the provider. Women have become dependent on men for this reason, and in the time this was written, there was no option but to be dependent on men. The conniving woman needs the man to manipulate and the goddess woman needs the man to take care of her because she is helpless to herself. It is amazing how long this complex has been continued and supported by society.
Finally, women are becoming more independent and capable without men. However there is still a dependence that many women seem unable to escape, such as those who remain in abusive relationships. Fear of the man and dependence on the income and stability he brings keeps women in situations that are inhumane. Woolf points out that the little that is written about women of the medieval age is that they were often beat by their husbands. It was acceptable to treat other fellow human beings as less than that, which has occurred throughout history with various groups. However women are the largest group that has been oppressed for the longest time in history. Beavoir solidifies this idea when she explains that the mysteriousness of women comes from the slave-master complex that has existed throughout history.
Is this oppression still accepted in our society to an extent? How is it that we have abolished slavery and yet women, who are a majority, are still under some oppression?
Beauvoir attributes the subordinance of women as being at the fault of men, but it is also partly the women’s fault as well because they accept this role until they do not even recognize themselves in the body they fill. Men always speak of the mysteriousness of women, which in many cases makes women even more desirable to men. I think this is because of the satisfaction that comes from dominating an unknown. Men do not make the effort to understand women, because it is not necessary to them. It is easier to dominate and makes laws that do not benefit, and may even harm, women if you can claim ignorance. Because of this, a slave-master complex has been formed. The ego of the male has been raised so high to consider themselves a gift to women. It is the man who grants the woman time, money, etc. for he is more busy and is the provider. Women have become dependent on men for this reason, and in the time this was written, there was no option but to be dependent on men. The conniving woman needs the man to manipulate and the goddess woman needs the man to take care of her because she is helpless to herself. It is amazing how long this complex has been continued and supported by society.
Finally, women are becoming more independent and capable without men. However there is still a dependence that many women seem unable to escape, such as those who remain in abusive relationships. Fear of the man and dependence on the income and stability he brings keeps women in situations that are inhumane. Woolf points out that the little that is written about women of the medieval age is that they were often beat by their husbands. It was acceptable to treat other fellow human beings as less than that, which has occurred throughout history with various groups. However women are the largest group that has been oppressed for the longest time in history. Beavoir solidifies this idea when she explains that the mysteriousness of women comes from the slave-master complex that has existed throughout history.
Is this oppression still accepted in our society to an extent? How is it that we have abolished slavery and yet women, who are a majority, are still under some oppression?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Society’s Real Motivation
After today’s discussion I have quite an interesting rebuttal / response. Today we looked at marketing for young girls and how society has become a trap for girls to become too feminized. This is a surface observation. In reality, looking more deeply into this issue, I think a reasonable explanation can be obtained.
I have a four-year old sister who is a popular consumer of modern marketing for children. As I see her enjoy herself with her vast amount of toys, I cannot help but think the following. Looking at the overly feminized dolls such as “Bratz,” my sister has a few of these dolls (not “Bratz” necessarily but similar types), in which she enjoys playing with. However, she also has addition dolls that range into all types of people, including minorities, and even men. So although she does have a few of these overly feminized dolls, they only make up a small portion of total collection, showing an interest in all types of people.
In addition to the various amounts of toys she plays with, my sister loves putting on play make-up. On a surface level, a typical response to this act is society’s push for girls to become more “girly.” I disagree. People behind marketing are not trying to push little girls into any direction whatsoever. They simply create and sell the products that sell; and play make-up happens to be a big seller. This is explained because young children love imitation in almost every form. They love to repeat common phrases used by their parents, and they love to take on the actions of their parents. This is how the learning process happens. So, after seeing my mom put on her make-up, my sister gains a desperate desire to imitate her mother. This is not only present in girls, but also boys. Little boys watch their fathers get dressed for work and want to do the same. I know that when I was a kid, a had a play shaving kit which contained a bottle of foamy soap, a plastic razor, and a box equipped with a mirror in which it came in. Does this mean I was being over masculinized? Certainly it does not. It simply means that I wanted to imitate my father because that is the natural instinct for children. This instinct is how children grow up and learn to become much like their parents.
Therefore, it is not the drive of society to try and push little girls to become overly feminized, but simply businessmen and women trying to create something that will sell so they can stay employed at their current institute.
I have a four-year old sister who is a popular consumer of modern marketing for children. As I see her enjoy herself with her vast amount of toys, I cannot help but think the following. Looking at the overly feminized dolls such as “Bratz,” my sister has a few of these dolls (not “Bratz” necessarily but similar types), in which she enjoys playing with. However, she also has addition dolls that range into all types of people, including minorities, and even men. So although she does have a few of these overly feminized dolls, they only make up a small portion of total collection, showing an interest in all types of people.
In addition to the various amounts of toys she plays with, my sister loves putting on play make-up. On a surface level, a typical response to this act is society’s push for girls to become more “girly.” I disagree. People behind marketing are not trying to push little girls into any direction whatsoever. They simply create and sell the products that sell; and play make-up happens to be a big seller. This is explained because young children love imitation in almost every form. They love to repeat common phrases used by their parents, and they love to take on the actions of their parents. This is how the learning process happens. So, after seeing my mom put on her make-up, my sister gains a desperate desire to imitate her mother. This is not only present in girls, but also boys. Little boys watch their fathers get dressed for work and want to do the same. I know that when I was a kid, a had a play shaving kit which contained a bottle of foamy soap, a plastic razor, and a box equipped with a mirror in which it came in. Does this mean I was being over masculinized? Certainly it does not. It simply means that I wanted to imitate my father because that is the natural instinct for children. This instinct is how children grow up and learn to become much like their parents.
Therefore, it is not the drive of society to try and push little girls to become overly feminized, but simply businessmen and women trying to create something that will sell so they can stay employed at their current institute.
Issues of The Whale Rider
The Whale Rider is a moving story that covers so many issues. First there is the most obvious relationship between Paikea and her grandfather, Koro. He does love her, which is apparent through his diligent care for her in giving her a ride to and from school. I think that a lot of people can identify with Paikea in her efforts to receive approval from her grandfather. Paikea is so meticulous in her tribal dances and schoolwork, seeking to prove to Koro that she is worth something, despite the fact that she is not the boy he wanted. So many people are unhappy because they do not feel that they have received the approval of a parent or role model. This is such an important issue in the low self-esteem of a lot of adolescence today. As we grow older, hopefully people can learn that the only person you really need to please is yourself. To depend on others for your happiness is dangerous.
An even greater issue is the gender roles that the community put on girls. The grandmother played the role, but she was not submissive like a wife is expected. She said that she let Koro think that he was in charge, but really it was she that had the control over the things that matter. However, I thought it was interesting that she kept saying she was going to get a divorce some day, though we know she probably never will. While she gets frustrated with Koro because he is so stuck in his ways, she also respects him for his strong belief and sense of duty.
The movie also touches on the issue of dying tribal culture. This greatly troubles Koro, as well as Paikea. I think that the whales beaching was a really cool way to symbolize the dying culture, and then that Paikea saved the whales, symbolizing her saving the tribal culture. I don’t think that it’s so much that Paikea is a “chosen one” but rather that she possessed the courage and strength that the others had forgotten. She gained her love for the culture through Koro. It is the people that keep a culture alive; Paikea was able to unite the family and the community again, which is what is necessary for the culture to survive.
An even greater issue is the gender roles that the community put on girls. The grandmother played the role, but she was not submissive like a wife is expected. She said that she let Koro think that he was in charge, but really it was she that had the control over the things that matter. However, I thought it was interesting that she kept saying she was going to get a divorce some day, though we know she probably never will. While she gets frustrated with Koro because he is so stuck in his ways, she also respects him for his strong belief and sense of duty.
The movie also touches on the issue of dying tribal culture. This greatly troubles Koro, as well as Paikea. I think that the whales beaching was a really cool way to symbolize the dying culture, and then that Paikea saved the whales, symbolizing her saving the tribal culture. I don’t think that it’s so much that Paikea is a “chosen one” but rather that she possessed the courage and strength that the others had forgotten. She gained her love for the culture through Koro. It is the people that keep a culture alive; Paikea was able to unite the family and the community again, which is what is necessary for the culture to survive.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Blindness and Lord of the Flies
The novel Blindness deals with a fictional crisis in which hundreds of people are stricken with a sudden milky-white blindness. Due to the condition being contagious, the infected are rushed to quarantine in an old mental hospital. The conditions quickly become inhumane, with guards that parallel the SS and sanitary conditions that seem unimaginable. To this point in the book (p. 186), many internees have died from various causes, and an uprising has made itself the only source of provisions, forcing sex slavery on the women if anyone else wants to eat.
Lord of the Flies was published in 1954, long before Blindness was first published in 1995. The main characters in Lord of the Flies (we'll call it LOTF from now on) are Ralph, Jack and Piggy. They are three out of a group of boys who survived a plane crash on a secluded tropical island. Incidentally, if you haven't read the book before and plan to, I'll probably spoil the story a little from now on. Ralph is elected as leader of the group, and he decides that Jack should be in charge of the boys who will gather the food. Piggy is Ralph's right-hand man, more or less. Ralph and Piggy find a conch shell that becomes a signal of power among the group. Inevitably, their improvised government falls apart, with Jack leading a rebellion against Ralph and Piggy's posse. The climax of the story occurs when one of Jack's followers rolls a boulder off a cliff to shut him up in the short term, but crushing and killing him in the long term. Their warfare continues until Ralph finds himself running for his life from Jack's blood-thirsty tribe. He reaches a beach, where he runs into a Naval officer - their rescuer. The boys immediately realize the gravity of what has happened and how the most dire of situations turn them against their friends to the point of murder and savagery.
At least so far, Blindness seems to be a near copy of LOTF. In both books, circumstances out of their control placed a group of otherwise civil people in an environment in which they are forced to fight for their own survival. In both books, any fair civil order that is attempted crumbles under the weight of human nature. In LOTF, Ralph and Piggy are seen as emotional and moral leaders among others who are weaker and some who are evil. In Blindness, the doctor and his wife fill this role. In LOTF, a quick turn of events renders an end to all the power struggles and exploitation that has developed. It is reasonable to assume that if all the internees' sight is restored, and they are released, that they would be in the same situation - shamed to no end of the beasts they became under duress.
What should we think in light of these parallels? Is Blindness a shameless ripoff of classic piece of Literature? Is the theme broad enough that differing details are enough to consider the two seperate stories? I think it's a combination. I don't think it is entirely a shameless ripoff, but it is flirting with earning that title. Personally, I don't think a narrow theme such as this allows for multiple renditions, but that opinion is supremely subjective. You can draw your own conclusion. While I think the situations portrayed in Blindness give cause for reflection and deep thought, I think they shouldn't be allowed to usurp LOTF, with which, as an author, Saramago should be familiar. I think he should take pause in the future before profiting on another LA Times Book of the Year that is really little more than a modern rerun of classic literature.
Lord of the Flies was published in 1954, long before Blindness was first published in 1995. The main characters in Lord of the Flies (we'll call it LOTF from now on) are Ralph, Jack and Piggy. They are three out of a group of boys who survived a plane crash on a secluded tropical island. Incidentally, if you haven't read the book before and plan to, I'll probably spoil the story a little from now on. Ralph is elected as leader of the group, and he decides that Jack should be in charge of the boys who will gather the food. Piggy is Ralph's right-hand man, more or less. Ralph and Piggy find a conch shell that becomes a signal of power among the group. Inevitably, their improvised government falls apart, with Jack leading a rebellion against Ralph and Piggy's posse. The climax of the story occurs when one of Jack's followers rolls a boulder off a cliff to shut him up in the short term, but crushing and killing him in the long term. Their warfare continues until Ralph finds himself running for his life from Jack's blood-thirsty tribe. He reaches a beach, where he runs into a Naval officer - their rescuer. The boys immediately realize the gravity of what has happened and how the most dire of situations turn them against their friends to the point of murder and savagery.
At least so far, Blindness seems to be a near copy of LOTF. In both books, circumstances out of their control placed a group of otherwise civil people in an environment in which they are forced to fight for their own survival. In both books, any fair civil order that is attempted crumbles under the weight of human nature. In LOTF, Ralph and Piggy are seen as emotional and moral leaders among others who are weaker and some who are evil. In Blindness, the doctor and his wife fill this role. In LOTF, a quick turn of events renders an end to all the power struggles and exploitation that has developed. It is reasonable to assume that if all the internees' sight is restored, and they are released, that they would be in the same situation - shamed to no end of the beasts they became under duress.
What should we think in light of these parallels? Is Blindness a shameless ripoff of classic piece of Literature? Is the theme broad enough that differing details are enough to consider the two seperate stories? I think it's a combination. I don't think it is entirely a shameless ripoff, but it is flirting with earning that title. Personally, I don't think a narrow theme such as this allows for multiple renditions, but that opinion is supremely subjective. You can draw your own conclusion. While I think the situations portrayed in Blindness give cause for reflection and deep thought, I think they shouldn't be allowed to usurp LOTF, with which, as an author, Saramago should be familiar. I think he should take pause in the future before profiting on another LA Times Book of the Year that is really little more than a modern rerun of classic literature.
Women in Art
Georgia O'Keefe - "Poppy's"
Sally Mann - "Bloody Nose"
Sally Mann - "Jessie at age 5"
One of the topics brought up in class pertained to women in the art world. I started to discuss the artist Sally Mann and her photographs and how her work was so controversial because it was not “maternal” to photograph her children nude. Many female artist are considered an outrage if their artwork does not show feminine qualities. For example, if a woman were to paint beautiful flowers like Georgia O’Keefe it would be completely acceptable and considered beautiful. If a woman were to create a series of glass bowls to hold fruit, again it would be accepted and considered beautiful. Because it is assumed by society that women only think of things like flowers and fruit; and that is all they are allowed to express. Now I am not saying that art created by women that includes the subjects of fruit and flowers is not beautiful, because it very well can be; but “radical” artist can create beautiful art as well. Female artist become outrageous when they start to create art that is outside of their feminine qualities. When women create art is in any way grotesque or “unattractive”, it causes uproar and the artist is considered radical. For example, Sally Mann noticed her son had a bloody nose when he came running into the house for a snack. The blood was crusted on his face, and it had already stopped bleeding but it was all over his shirt. She stopped him and photographed him because it has happened in every household. The child is having so much fun outside he gets hurt and doesn’t care, the parent notices this incident after it had already happened and the child could care less. Sally Mann called a bad mother for photographing her son, instead of helping him. Though the blood was already dry. Sally Mann is not the only female artist who was considered radical among men in society, but her photographs include two very sensitive subjects: children and nudity.
Response to Whale Rider
Whale rider was an interesting movie experience for me because I didn’t much like the movie at all to start with, I felt it was too slow and I kept thinking about the coldness and stubbornness of Paikea’s grandfather. I do agree though, that the complete reversal of the grandfather’s feelings made the end of the movie so powerful. One of the best moments was when the grandfather called Paikea the wise leader and admitted that he had been blind in not recognizing what she was. This was a perfect movie to watch during the feminist movement because it shows very well the amount of effort required of feminists and the persecution they face to change society for the better. Paikea waited the whole movie, suffering at the expense of the culture, to make a difference, but the important thing is that she came through all this and was strong in the end.
My favorite part of the movie was the climax of her ride on the whale through the water. I felt that this was such a spiritual moment for her and it was very moving. I could really see throughout the entire movie that Paikea took the culture seriously and was dedicated to it and her grandfather. Her love was very powerful towards her grandfather no matter what he did, and she didn’t ever blame him and she only disobeyed him to show him that he was confused and stubborn. She always had the qualities of a leader and she finally realized them at the end.
My favorite part of the movie was the climax of her ride on the whale through the water. I felt that this was such a spiritual moment for her and it was very moving. I could really see throughout the entire movie that Paikea took the culture seriously and was dedicated to it and her grandfather. Her love was very powerful towards her grandfather no matter what he did, and she didn’t ever blame him and she only disobeyed him to show him that he was confused and stubborn. She always had the qualities of a leader and she finally realized them at the end.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Whale Rider
The movie Whale Rider really emphasized the role of genders in the community. This became increasingly evident as the movie progressed. In the first few minutes, after the twin brother had died, the viewer could recognize that the grandfather and his tradition were reserved for males. The grandfather eventually learned to love his grand daughter, even though she was not what he wanted. The grand daughter’s actions kept angering the grandfather because she was trying to participate in cultural rituals that were only deemed appropriate for males. I think that something that is important to take into consideration when judging the grandfather for his actions toward his grand daughter, is that he was raised with cultural tradition playing a more important role in his life, than his grand daughter and the other boys. The other boys treated the grand daughter as more of an equal than the grand father did. This is partly because they were raised in different times. He was taught the traditions as being reserved only for males, so in a way he was conditioned to act in the way he did. He was probably never exposed to other cultures, where the woman’s role was not limited to housework and raising the children. He was trying to pass on the only thing he knew, his cultural traditions. As an outsider looking into the situation, it is very easy to say that the way the grand father treated his grand daughter was horrible. However, he probably did not agree because their culture permitted it. I think that it is important, when looking at other cultures, to remember that the differences on how people are treated in society are directly reflective of that culture. In the United States and other westernized countries, women are encouraged to take a more active role in society, but this is not the case everywhere, as is evident with the movie.
Bringing Themes Together
Whale Rider is a film that, in my opinion, requires more post-viewing thought. After watching the movie I was not immediately struck with even the most obvious themes or correlations; I was only looking at it in a very surface manner. However, one main idea that struck me from the beginning that the director did a wonderful job portraying was the beautiful, not over-bearing, sense of feminine pride. The word feminism can sometimes lead to a lot of bad feelings and connotations because, like other minority alliances, radicals can emerge. However, when looked at it such a pure way through the eyes of Paikea, this word is one of strength and respect in a culture that would only acknowledge the leadership/warrior qualities of a man. I could feel Paikea’s struggle through the genius dialogue and consistent themes of overcoming struggle.
Paikea, in Whale Rider, overcomes one major struggle at the end of the movie. This same theme of her essentially fixing the frayed rope that “is” her family tree/ancestors and bringing her whole community together through one action of strength/courage, was seen earlier in the movie when she fixes the engine for her grandfather using the tied fragments of frayed rope. Her grandfather’s response: don’t do it again/too dangerous. This is a distinct foreshadowing to the climax of the movie which I found to be very moving. This idea of overcoming a struggle from a minority viewpoint has been a main theme of ours throughout this course, making this a great movie to end with. Paikea reminded me a lot of Rosa Parks when she refused to sit in the back of class like her grandfather instructed just because of her gender. Also, the theme of feminism which we are now covering is the basis for this movie and is a great way of trying in all the concepts. From Cicero’s time, where he talks of the mistreatment of women, until present day, our class has observed (through the best of authors’ eyes/writing) that oppression can, with enough perseverance, be fought against. There might always be some people who use biased thoughts to form racist or sexist feelings, but there is no reason why we cannot fight against this ignorance.
Paikea, in Whale Rider, overcomes one major struggle at the end of the movie. This same theme of her essentially fixing the frayed rope that “is” her family tree/ancestors and bringing her whole community together through one action of strength/courage, was seen earlier in the movie when she fixes the engine for her grandfather using the tied fragments of frayed rope. Her grandfather’s response: don’t do it again/too dangerous. This is a distinct foreshadowing to the climax of the movie which I found to be very moving. This idea of overcoming a struggle from a minority viewpoint has been a main theme of ours throughout this course, making this a great movie to end with. Paikea reminded me a lot of Rosa Parks when she refused to sit in the back of class like her grandfather instructed just because of her gender. Also, the theme of feminism which we are now covering is the basis for this movie and is a great way of trying in all the concepts. From Cicero’s time, where he talks of the mistreatment of women, until present day, our class has observed (through the best of authors’ eyes/writing) that oppression can, with enough perseverance, be fought against. There might always be some people who use biased thoughts to form racist or sexist feelings, but there is no reason why we cannot fight against this ignorance.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The origins of Morality
Iris Murdoch was a powerful voice in the 20th century when it came topics dealing with religion. She madder her mark mainly through fiction, but also wrote nonfiction, like Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, in which the selection “Morality and Religion” can be found. In this section she philosophically examines religion and what it has to do with morality in humans. An important question to ask when looking at this topic is, “what is morality?” How was morality born and what does it have to do with religion? Morality is a byproduct of evolution. Morality cannot be found in nature, because other beings besides humans are not intelligent enough to have developed it, but what can be found in nature is the natural ability for animals to govern themselves. The strongest of a group of animals will become the leader and will protect the rest of the group. He will make the choices of when to move and when to fight. Humans still do this. We designate a leader to guide the rest of us, make our laws, command our military, and so on. The difference is that we are intelligent enough to foresee threats coming from within and outside society, and so measures must be taken to prevent these threats from occurring. This is where morality comes in. It is our attempt to prevent the destruction of society as a whole in a world that is based (naturally) on survival of the fittest individual. Humans naturally work to insure their own personal survival and success, or that of their family or offspring, so what morality does is to make is so many humans can live peacefully together while at the same time working for personal benefit. An example of this is two rival butchers. They both own similar businesses, so it would be most beneficial for one butcher to kill the other and therefore maximize his own income. Morality prevents this by structuring a code that shuns murder. While the murderous butcher may still desire to kill the other, he no longer does because morality has made murder taboo. This relates directly to religion because morality is almost always introduced into society in the form of a religion. This adds the only other aspect needed to insure the indoctrination of the moral code into the people, and this is punishment and reward. Threat of eternal suffering and the promise of everlasting life and happiness is enough to make even modern humans follow an idea.
A Few Whale Rider Themes
The movie Whale Rider was unlike most movies I have seen. I have never been exposed to those certain beliefs and customs, and I found the viewing experience quite enlightening. I also thought that the filmmakers did a very good job of developing the characters and portraying the different struggles that Paikea went through and had to overcome. For me, this was one of those movies that I could actually “get into.”
The gender segregation of Paikea and the first-born sons and the resulting conflicts were obvious themes to pick up on. Yet while viewing this movie and thinking about it afterwards, I noticed some other, perhaps more subtle ones. At the beginning of the movie, for example, Paikea’s grandfather made it clear that he was not happy with the fact that his son produced a daughter rather than a son. This was manifested in his apparently apathetic demeanor toward the news of his granddaughter and also when he was chanting over his dead grandson and told his wife to take the granddaughter out of the room—as if he did not want his granddaughter to be near a ritual so holy or special. When I saw this, my first reaction was something along the lines of “What a jerk.”
Yet as the movie progressed, it was clear to me that although Paikea’s grandfather was not happy he did not have a grandson, he still loved Paikea very much. He always picked her up from school and let her ride on his bike with him, and when it was time for Paikea to go back with her father, her grandfather gave her a very long hug and then watched out the window as they left. In my opinion, these are all indications of a loving feeling toward something. Even throughout the rest of the movie when Paikea’s grandfather would scold her and exclude her from the leadership school, I never got the feeling that he didn’t love her—just that he really believed a girl should not take part in those activities. I feel like although Paikea’s grandfather would rather have had a grandson, he still accepted her and grew to love her.
I also picked up on a subtle conflict between Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle, the second son. I recall a part in the movie when Paikea’s grandmother was telling Paikea about her uncle and how slim and fit he used to be. Paikea asked what happened for him to have changed so much, and her grandmother responded, “He was the second son.” There was also a time when Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle were in the boat with the students from the leadership school and the grandfather threw his whale tooth out into the ocean and told the boys to get it. Two of the boys stayed behind and when the grandfather looked to them for an explanation, Paikea’s uncle said something along the lines of “It’s ok.” From the grandfather’s behavior, I got the feeling that he did not think it was all right, and the uncle’s response seemed like a direct defiance to his father’s ways. I think that there was an obvious yet unstated conflict between these two characters (Paikea’s grandfather and uncle) because Paikea’s uncle was not the first born, and therefore had been written off by her grandfather. Furthermore, I think that when Paikea asked her uncle to teach her what was being taught in the leadership school, her uncle took it as an opportunity to prove to himself and others that he was worthy of knowing such ways even though he was the second son. All in all, I noticed many different themes and ideas presented in this movie, but these two were the ones that really got me thinking. I do believe that although he was extremely hard on her and sexist, Paikea’s grandfather really did love her—he was just completely convinced that she did not belong in that leadership school. I also feel that there was some tension between Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle, and that her uncle had not been taken so seriously because he was the second son and the grandfather’s first had left them.
The gender segregation of Paikea and the first-born sons and the resulting conflicts were obvious themes to pick up on. Yet while viewing this movie and thinking about it afterwards, I noticed some other, perhaps more subtle ones. At the beginning of the movie, for example, Paikea’s grandfather made it clear that he was not happy with the fact that his son produced a daughter rather than a son. This was manifested in his apparently apathetic demeanor toward the news of his granddaughter and also when he was chanting over his dead grandson and told his wife to take the granddaughter out of the room—as if he did not want his granddaughter to be near a ritual so holy or special. When I saw this, my first reaction was something along the lines of “What a jerk.”
Yet as the movie progressed, it was clear to me that although Paikea’s grandfather was not happy he did not have a grandson, he still loved Paikea very much. He always picked her up from school and let her ride on his bike with him, and when it was time for Paikea to go back with her father, her grandfather gave her a very long hug and then watched out the window as they left. In my opinion, these are all indications of a loving feeling toward something. Even throughout the rest of the movie when Paikea’s grandfather would scold her and exclude her from the leadership school, I never got the feeling that he didn’t love her—just that he really believed a girl should not take part in those activities. I feel like although Paikea’s grandfather would rather have had a grandson, he still accepted her and grew to love her.
I also picked up on a subtle conflict between Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle, the second son. I recall a part in the movie when Paikea’s grandmother was telling Paikea about her uncle and how slim and fit he used to be. Paikea asked what happened for him to have changed so much, and her grandmother responded, “He was the second son.” There was also a time when Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle were in the boat with the students from the leadership school and the grandfather threw his whale tooth out into the ocean and told the boys to get it. Two of the boys stayed behind and when the grandfather looked to them for an explanation, Paikea’s uncle said something along the lines of “It’s ok.” From the grandfather’s behavior, I got the feeling that he did not think it was all right, and the uncle’s response seemed like a direct defiance to his father’s ways. I think that there was an obvious yet unstated conflict between these two characters (Paikea’s grandfather and uncle) because Paikea’s uncle was not the first born, and therefore had been written off by her grandfather. Furthermore, I think that when Paikea asked her uncle to teach her what was being taught in the leadership school, her uncle took it as an opportunity to prove to himself and others that he was worthy of knowing such ways even though he was the second son. All in all, I noticed many different themes and ideas presented in this movie, but these two were the ones that really got me thinking. I do believe that although he was extremely hard on her and sexist, Paikea’s grandfather really did love her—he was just completely convinced that she did not belong in that leadership school. I also feel that there was some tension between Paikea’s grandfather and her uncle, and that her uncle had not been taken so seriously because he was the second son and the grandfather’s first had left them.
The Whale Rider
In response to your questions, instead of posting this as a comment I am going to post it as a Blog because you addressed many of the issues that I was going to address as well.
The young girl did a wonderful job acting, but I believe the presence of the superiority issue was not only addressed with her as a young child but with all women in the community. In the beginning of the movie the women were addressed to go to the kitchen and cook the food. Later, when the school was going to “open”, all of the women were in the kitchen while the men were outside and the Chief was ordering his wife around knowing that the other women would follow her lead. Most of the discrimination came from her grandfather, and not the others in the community. The boys who were her age did not demand that she sat behind them, one of them even taught her fighting moves. Her uncle helped her learn fighting moves while his friends encouraged them, if I remember correctly, the grandmother told her granddaughter that the uncle used to be wonderful at the sport and encouraged her to ask him to teach her. It was a direct discrimination between grandfather and granddaughter. For, she was the twin who lived, the one who broke the rope of chiefs in their family threads. The grandfather viewed her as a curse, she was not male therefore she could not be chief.
The young girl did a wonderful job acting, but I believe the presence of the superiority issue was not only addressed with her as a young child but with all women in the community. In the beginning of the movie the women were addressed to go to the kitchen and cook the food. Later, when the school was going to “open”, all of the women were in the kitchen while the men were outside and the Chief was ordering his wife around knowing that the other women would follow her lead. Most of the discrimination came from her grandfather, and not the others in the community. The boys who were her age did not demand that she sat behind them, one of them even taught her fighting moves. Her uncle helped her learn fighting moves while his friends encouraged them, if I remember correctly, the grandmother told her granddaughter that the uncle used to be wonderful at the sport and encouraged her to ask him to teach her. It was a direct discrimination between grandfather and granddaughter. For, she was the twin who lived, the one who broke the rope of chiefs in their family threads. The grandfather viewed her as a curse, she was not male therefore she could not be chief.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Whale Rider!
First I wanted to say what I thought about the movie...
I was kind of split on this. I liked the movie, but I can't really say why. The little girl really was an amazing actress, and I really could understand how much she was hurting from not being accepted. The topic itself was slightly confusing though. I don't know if it was simply because they didn't explain it enough or what but I was slightly confused most of the time.
Ok, now for the actual discussion stuff. I wanted to ask everyone why they thought that the makers of the film used that topic. Why was it from a community or society that not very many belong to or can really relate to? Also, they didn't really explain its customs. For example, I wasn't sure if the girl wasn't allowed because the grandpa simply didn't want her to or if it really just wasn't allowed by the customs. You would think that they would have used another society, such as africans, like in hotel rwanda. But they only had one person that was being discriminated against, one little girl. So I was kind of confused on that and was wondering what everyone thought on why they did that...
Another thing that i really liked in the movie is how it really related to Blindness... I know we haven't technically read this yet, but chad was talking about how the wife of the doctor still felt compassion for the people that had hurt her and others. I thought that this was just like the girl after she had moved out of her grandpa's house, yet she still came back, and still had enough compassion/love for him to talk to him and ask him to come to her play. Just an observation!
First I wanted to say what I thought about the movie...
I was kind of split on this. I liked the movie, but I can't really say why. The little girl really was an amazing actress, and I really could understand how much she was hurting from not being accepted. The topic itself was slightly confusing though. I don't know if it was simply because they didn't explain it enough or what but I was slightly confused most of the time.
Ok, now for the actual discussion stuff. I wanted to ask everyone why they thought that the makers of the film used that topic. Why was it from a community or society that not very many belong to or can really relate to? Also, they didn't really explain its customs. For example, I wasn't sure if the girl wasn't allowed because the grandpa simply didn't want her to or if it really just wasn't allowed by the customs. You would think that they would have used another society, such as africans, like in hotel rwanda. But they only had one person that was being discriminated against, one little girl. So I was kind of confused on that and was wondering what everyone thought on why they did that...
Another thing that i really liked in the movie is how it really related to Blindness... I know we haven't technically read this yet, but chad was talking about how the wife of the doctor still felt compassion for the people that had hurt her and others. I thought that this was just like the girl after she had moved out of her grandpa's house, yet she still came back, and still had enough compassion/love for him to talk to him and ask him to come to her play. Just an observation!
So, this post doesn't have much to do with what we were talking about, but I saw the cartoon posted by Matt and it got me thinking about how ungrateful we are in this country for everything that we have.
First of all, almost anything that you hear about George Bush anymore is how little people approve of him... I think it's like 30% or somewhere around there. Anyway, is it because the other 70% of people actually don't like him? Or could it be the other few people that keep talking bad about him and they just keep reporting it on the news? But what else is it that everyone is so unappreciative about? I mean we have the whole freedom of religion... granted, there may be some problems with it, and it may be imperfect, but its one of the best things we got. Why do you think so many want to move to america, yet it seems that a lot of people really don't like us! So they like our country but not us... we're just whiny little brats that have no appreciation for what we have. So Georgie hasn't been perfect... whoopty doo!! what other president has been perfect? If I remember right, Clinton had a higher rating even after the whole monica scandal. Something seems wrong with that picture but if that's what americans want...
Another thing, many people are mad about the whole iraq thing going "awry" or not going according to plan. Whatever it reason is why we're still there, quit complaining about it! You're not in the army, you're not fighting the war. Bush had the best of intentions by doing that. Maybe he got oil out of it, but hey, it helped us! And it got rid of another dictator to replace with a democracy! What's wrong with that? So they didn't come back early enough, but a lot of problems were solved. Besides there are a few other worse things that could happen to the country than a president that just happens to resemble a monkey... such as hurricanes? tornadoes? floods? earthquakes? so stop complaining so much and start appreciating what you have and maybe you'll see that you've got it pretty good...
First of all, almost anything that you hear about George Bush anymore is how little people approve of him... I think it's like 30% or somewhere around there. Anyway, is it because the other 70% of people actually don't like him? Or could it be the other few people that keep talking bad about him and they just keep reporting it on the news? But what else is it that everyone is so unappreciative about? I mean we have the whole freedom of religion... granted, there may be some problems with it, and it may be imperfect, but its one of the best things we got. Why do you think so many want to move to america, yet it seems that a lot of people really don't like us! So they like our country but not us... we're just whiny little brats that have no appreciation for what we have. So Georgie hasn't been perfect... whoopty doo!! what other president has been perfect? If I remember right, Clinton had a higher rating even after the whole monica scandal. Something seems wrong with that picture but if that's what americans want...
Another thing, many people are mad about the whole iraq thing going "awry" or not going according to plan. Whatever it reason is why we're still there, quit complaining about it! You're not in the army, you're not fighting the war. Bush had the best of intentions by doing that. Maybe he got oil out of it, but hey, it helped us! And it got rid of another dictator to replace with a democracy! What's wrong with that? So they didn't come back early enough, but a lot of problems were solved. Besides there are a few other worse things that could happen to the country than a president that just happens to resemble a monkey... such as hurricanes? tornadoes? floods? earthquakes? so stop complaining so much and start appreciating what you have and maybe you'll see that you've got it pretty good...
So, this post doesn't have much to do with what we were talking about, but I saw the cartoon posted by Matt and it got me thinking about how ungrateful we are in this country for everything that we have.
First of all, almost anything that you hear about George Bush anymore is how little people approve of him... I think it's like 30% or somewhere around there. Anyway, is it because the other 70% of people actually don't like him? Or could it be the other few people that keep talking bad about him and they just keep reporting it on the news? But what else is it that everyone is so unappreciative about? I mean we have the whole freedom of religion... granted, there may be some problems with it, and it may be imperfect, but its one of the best things we got. Why do you think so many want to move to america, yet it seems that a lot of people really don't like us! So they like our country but not us... we're just whiny little brats that have no appreciation for what we have. So Georgie hasn't been perfect... whoopty doo!! what other president has been perfect? If I remember right, Clinton had a higher rating even after the whole monica scandal. Something seems wrong with that picture but if that's what americans want...
Another thing, many people are mad about the whole iraq thing going "awry" or not going according to plan. Whatever it reason is why we're still there, quit complaining about it! You're not in the army, you're not fighting the war. Bush had the best of intentions by doing that. Maybe he got oil out of it, but hey, it helped us! And it got rid of another dictator to replace with a democracy! What's wrong with that? So they didn't come back early enough, but a lot of problems were solved. Besides there are a few other worse things that could happen to the country than a president that just happens to resemble a monkey... such as hurricanes? tornadoes? floods? earthquakes? so stop complaining so much and start appreciating what you have and maybe you'll see that you've got it pretty good...
First of all, almost anything that you hear about George Bush anymore is how little people approve of him... I think it's like 30% or somewhere around there. Anyway, is it because the other 70% of people actually don't like him? Or could it be the other few people that keep talking bad about him and they just keep reporting it on the news? But what else is it that everyone is so unappreciative about? I mean we have the whole freedom of religion... granted, there may be some problems with it, and it may be imperfect, but its one of the best things we got. Why do you think so many want to move to america, yet it seems that a lot of people really don't like us! So they like our country but not us... we're just whiny little brats that have no appreciation for what we have. So Georgie hasn't been perfect... whoopty doo!! what other president has been perfect? If I remember right, Clinton had a higher rating even after the whole monica scandal. Something seems wrong with that picture but if that's what americans want...
Another thing, many people are mad about the whole iraq thing going "awry" or not going according to plan. Whatever it reason is why we're still there, quit complaining about it! You're not in the army, you're not fighting the war. Bush had the best of intentions by doing that. Maybe he got oil out of it, but hey, it helped us! And it got rid of another dictator to replace with a democracy! What's wrong with that? So they didn't come back early enough, but a lot of problems were solved. Besides there are a few other worse things that could happen to the country than a president that just happens to resemble a monkey... such as hurricanes? tornadoes? floods? earthquakes? so stop complaining so much and start appreciating what you have and maybe you'll see that you've got it pretty good...
Representation
In Mary Wollstonecraft’s piece regarding, “Unnatural Distinction Established in Society,” she brings up some relevant points regarding class and female representation in politics. Wollstonecraft argues that one class always drives against another class—presumably the upper and lower class. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft attacks the British political system and specifically politicians who excessively tax the poor in order to give to the rich. However, drawing back to Elizabeth Cady-Stanton’s “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” where her main point concerned the ability for females to vote and participate in the political system, it was also Wollstonecraft who called for the same rights in her 18th Century essay. While Wollstonecraft’s essay is over 200 years old, it is somewhat depressing that many of the issues she brings up, still need to be addressed in the 21st Century.
The points Wollstonecraft argues against regarding class and feminism are discussed in an article by Holly Sklar titled, “Imagine a Country—2006.” Sklar brings up the fact that the poverty rate during the 1970s in the United States was lower than it is today and considers the numbers paradoxical since America is the richest country in the world. However, it is the political system that Sklar, similar to Wollstonecraft and Cady-Stanton, takes issue with. Wollstonecraft stated, “…I really think that women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed without having any direct share allowed in the deliberations of government” (paragraph 22). While in the United States today, women can vote and are elected to political positions, the actual amount of women holding representative positions is shockingly low and not representative of the actual population.
Drawing back to the “Imagine a Country” article, Sklar brings up the notion of unequal representation, by offering what fair representation in the U.S. Senate would look like, based on population-- 51 women and 49 men, yet only 16 women currently serve in the senate and just 35 have served in total. Secondly, one out of two current senators is a millionaire. By looking at the unequal representation of how Americans are represented in the halls of its government, it is no wonder that there continues to be unequal distribution of wealth and equality in the country since very few “average” citizens have ascended to power, to truly offer an image of what America really looks like. In conclusion, perhaps if the government was not run by the privileged for the privileged few, there might be time to tackle issues like: tax cuts for the wealthy, fair pay for women, and the ability for all Americans to have access to a proper education.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Wollstonecraft
I found Wollstonecraft’s piece very interesting as well as still relevant. I thought reading something from the 1700’s would be pointless because I would not be able to relate to it. There were many things that were addressed that are still true today, one of them being class issues. Much of it had to do with the wealthy part of society. She talks of how the wealthy are often idle and will only do things to earn certain titles or honor through being a soldier or statesman. This still seems to ring true in the way that people identify certain jobs with having power or high social status. There are people in this world that only judge how successful of a life you’ve lived by how much money is in your bank account. I thought Wollstonecraft’s piece talked about this in relation to women in a good way as well. Today, women are still only climbing the corporate ladder so far and then they hit the glass ceiling. Although many think that women’s issues in the US are solved, there is still many issues that need to be resolved. Women still only make $0.75 for every dollar that a man makes. The fact that Wollstonecraft addressed some of these issues in her piece back in the 1700’s was really revolutionary and it is amazing that some of these issues are still prevalent today. The last major idea in Wollstonecraft’s piece that I agreed with is when she talks about beautiful women and women in the home. I do not agree that pretty women will neglect their duties as wives and other things just because they are pretty but I know that many pretty women will get by in life a lot easier than less-attractive women. There was a psychology study done and it showed that more pretty women were helped on the street when they needed it and many were promoted faster than other women. Also, there are still many women that face mothers and grandmothers that encourage them to be housewives when they want to go into a professional field.
The writings of Nietzsche have been very influential and, although I do not agree most of what he says, I find his logic and thought process very interesting. To some extent, I agree with his basic argument that morality is anti-nature. By this I mean that it goes against human nature to act morally. Human nature is corrupt, selfish, and sinful. If everyone did as they wanted to and not as they ought to, the world would be a much darker place.
I feel that many of Nietzsche’s conclusions were based on misconceptions of the church and/or misconceptions the church had on the teachings of Christ. First of all, Nietzsche talks about the denial of passions in the church. His experiences with the church may have been different from mine, but what he says in paragraph 2 is not how the church portrays passion. He states that the church hates passion, but this is not true. Let’s take sex for example. God loves sex, He created sex and even encourages it—within the context that He created it for—marriage. God values passion, but He also values self-control. It is important to remember that even a good thing used in the wrong way can be bad. Similarly, a seemingly good act done for with wrong motives is not a good at all. This is where legalism comes in. Legalism is following the “rules” just for the sake of following the rules and not out of love for God and desire to please Him. It has been a big problem in the church for pretty much as long as it has existed. Many people think that the Bible is just a book of rules, and if you break any of these rules then you are going to go to hell. This is not entirely true. Although there are many instructions on how to live a godly life in the Bible, the key message is this: we no longer bound by the law. God did not send Jesus to condemn the world, but to save the world (John 3:17).
In paragraph 5, Nietzsche states that the church wants to destroy its enemies, but as stated in the Sermon on the Mount (which Nietzsche refers to in paragraph 1) Christians are to love their enemies. This is where the church often stumbles. They think that just because someone does not follow God they should be judged, shunned, and condemned. This is entirely non-biblical. Christians are commanded to love everyone—regardless of if they are drinkers, smokers, homosexuals, cheaters, whatever.
Nietzsche seems like he thinks that the church denies intelligence and discourages learning. This has happened in the past, but wrongfully so. Why would God give us minds if He did not want us to use them?
In conclusion, I feel that many of the points made by Nietzsche are problems with the church, not with Christianity. They are based off of imperfection and misinterpretations made by the church and not flaws in the Bible itself.
I feel that many of Nietzsche’s conclusions were based on misconceptions of the church and/or misconceptions the church had on the teachings of Christ. First of all, Nietzsche talks about the denial of passions in the church. His experiences with the church may have been different from mine, but what he says in paragraph 2 is not how the church portrays passion. He states that the church hates passion, but this is not true. Let’s take sex for example. God loves sex, He created sex and even encourages it—within the context that He created it for—marriage. God values passion, but He also values self-control. It is important to remember that even a good thing used in the wrong way can be bad. Similarly, a seemingly good act done for with wrong motives is not a good at all. This is where legalism comes in. Legalism is following the “rules” just for the sake of following the rules and not out of love for God and desire to please Him. It has been a big problem in the church for pretty much as long as it has existed. Many people think that the Bible is just a book of rules, and if you break any of these rules then you are going to go to hell. This is not entirely true. Although there are many instructions on how to live a godly life in the Bible, the key message is this: we no longer bound by the law. God did not send Jesus to condemn the world, but to save the world (John 3:17).
In paragraph 5, Nietzsche states that the church wants to destroy its enemies, but as stated in the Sermon on the Mount (which Nietzsche refers to in paragraph 1) Christians are to love their enemies. This is where the church often stumbles. They think that just because someone does not follow God they should be judged, shunned, and condemned. This is entirely non-biblical. Christians are commanded to love everyone—regardless of if they are drinkers, smokers, homosexuals, cheaters, whatever.
Nietzsche seems like he thinks that the church denies intelligence and discourages learning. This has happened in the past, but wrongfully so. Why would God give us minds if He did not want us to use them?
In conclusion, I feel that many of the points made by Nietzsche are problems with the church, not with Christianity. They are based off of imperfection and misinterpretations made by the church and not flaws in the Bible itself.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
The act of going blind in symbolic literature always seems to represent a willful avoidance of the truth or reality. Invisible Man, a novel written by Ralph Ellison in 1952, reminds me of Blindness by Jose Saramago in many ways. I realize that we have not read this novel in class, but Ellison’s approach to blindness as a symbol of ignorance is so closely related to Saramago’s work that it should be briefly researched. The narrator of Invisible Man repeatedly mentions the inability of the characters to see what their hate and bias prevents them from seeing. A physical blindness affects two man characters, Reverend Homer Barbee and Brother Jack, and phrases such as “empty eyes” and “blinding lights” prevent many from actually observing (which I think was an important distinction of seeing that we discussed at the beginning of class on Wenesday). Although this novel is much different from Blindness, the theme of blindness in the sense of voluntary ignorance and denial is very similar. This was such an influential novel in its time, as well as today, that I cannot help but think that Saramago was greatly influenced by Ellison’s poetic usage of the themes of blindness, white versus black, and stereotypes (labels).
Blindness is completely timeless. It has no color, no names. There is nothing which a future generation could reference as a specific time in history because they will be experiencing the same stereotypes and “blindness” towards what they choose not to observe. This is kind of novel that we need to take note of and realize that unless we start to observe our similarities and embrace, not just remain blind to, all of each other’s differences, prejudice will continue to thrive. One last point that I thought of after class was how the milky white color of blindness seemed to represent a type of purity to me. I agree that it has aspects and symbolism in accordance to fog/seeing etc, but white strikes a purity reference in the minds of many analytical readers and might make sense if the act of going blind is looked at as putting everyone on a “level playing field” (temporarily purifying/taking away the ability to sin by way of bias). I would like to know what everyone thinks of that idea and the Invisible Man reference.
Blindness is completely timeless. It has no color, no names. There is nothing which a future generation could reference as a specific time in history because they will be experiencing the same stereotypes and “blindness” towards what they choose not to observe. This is kind of novel that we need to take note of and realize that unless we start to observe our similarities and embrace, not just remain blind to, all of each other’s differences, prejudice will continue to thrive. One last point that I thought of after class was how the milky white color of blindness seemed to represent a type of purity to me. I agree that it has aspects and symbolism in accordance to fog/seeing etc, but white strikes a purity reference in the minds of many analytical readers and might make sense if the act of going blind is looked at as putting everyone on a “level playing field” (temporarily purifying/taking away the ability to sin by way of bias). I would like to know what everyone thinks of that idea and the Invisible Man reference.
Murdoch
Iris Murdoch is a well-known British philosopher, who in her book Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals discusses how, as humans, we understand morals. An often debated question is whether morals can exist outside the premise of religion. In the “Morality and Religion” excerpt from her book, Murdoch gives an explanation for both sides of the argument. She views religion as being stronger than morality because generally religions have more direct views about good and evil.
I want to explore the idea of whether morals can exist without religion. I think that morals can be present in a person’s life, without them having a religious devotion. There are many people in the world, who have no religious affiliation, nor believe in a higher power. However, these people still act as moral beings and deem certain things as right and wrong. These people make these decisions based on what they feel inside of them, not on a given religious instruction. Although, it may seem as if many moral decisions are based on religion, people are capable of producing their own moral code, which is many times similar to that of a religious one. There are many moral theories that exist, that do not have any religious premise.
One thing that came to my mind while thinking of morals existing without religious influence is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded on religious values, but the law separates church and state. This separation forces other laws passed to have motivations that are not religious. The government manages to pass laws like that, so it is possible to have morals without religions, but is this separation really a separation or are the lawmakers just able to claim that their laws are not religiously motivated? I think that essentially most laws pasted in the United States have some sort ties with a religion. Most government officials are religious and it is impossible to not bring their religious morals with them. I agree with Murdoch that religious morals are stronger because they offer people an easier way to live their life, than does a person who has to pick their own morals for every situation. In addition, many people do not live their lives by strict religious morals, so they use a combination of religious and their own morals.
Murdoch presents both arguments for and against morals existing with religion. I liked one thing her piece because she left the answer up to the reader. She showed her unbiased in the situation and this let the readers form their own opinion on the issue. One thing that I did not like about her piece was that it was difficult to read, and that made the reading not enjoyable. I think that morals can exist without religion, and thousands of people live their life that way.
I want to explore the idea of whether morals can exist without religion. I think that morals can be present in a person’s life, without them having a religious devotion. There are many people in the world, who have no religious affiliation, nor believe in a higher power. However, these people still act as moral beings and deem certain things as right and wrong. These people make these decisions based on what they feel inside of them, not on a given religious instruction. Although, it may seem as if many moral decisions are based on religion, people are capable of producing their own moral code, which is many times similar to that of a religious one. There are many moral theories that exist, that do not have any religious premise.
One thing that came to my mind while thinking of morals existing without religious influence is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded on religious values, but the law separates church and state. This separation forces other laws passed to have motivations that are not religious. The government manages to pass laws like that, so it is possible to have morals without religions, but is this separation really a separation or are the lawmakers just able to claim that their laws are not religiously motivated? I think that essentially most laws pasted in the United States have some sort ties with a religion. Most government officials are religious and it is impossible to not bring their religious morals with them. I agree with Murdoch that religious morals are stronger because they offer people an easier way to live their life, than does a person who has to pick their own morals for every situation. In addition, many people do not live their lives by strict religious morals, so they use a combination of religious and their own morals.
Murdoch presents both arguments for and against morals existing with religion. I liked one thing her piece because she left the answer up to the reader. She showed her unbiased in the situation and this let the readers form their own opinion on the issue. One thing that I did not like about her piece was that it was difficult to read, and that made the reading not enjoyable. I think that morals can exist without religion, and thousands of people live their life that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)