April: Existentialism

The main philosophy behind the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus is existentialism. The idea behind existentialism is that the only meaning in life is whatever meaning we as human beings give it. It sounds like a depressing concept, but in reality humanity is ignorant to the true workings of the universe. We tend to follow religion and morals blindly without knowing if they even have a meaning, or if things just happen because they happen. The protagonist ,Meursault, perfectly exemplifies this belief. Instead of putting a label on every little relationship or event that happens to him, he simply accepts things for what they are. To Meursault there is no right or wrong there is just what is. As a society we tend to forget this. We want to find meaning in anything and everything to prove that there is meaning to life. We want to know what happens to us after we die. We want to know that if we lived a good and meaningful life we will be rewarded after we die. We are afraid of being pointless. However in contrast to the existentialism philosopher I do believe there is a greater meaning for why we are here. I believe that if there was no meaning to our lives than we would not be aware of our own existence and we would not question things we don't understand. If there was no meaning in life shouldn't we all have the same mind set as Meursault?

March: Good or Evil

One of the many questions people continually asks themselves is "am I a good person"?  In Christopher Marlowe's, Dr. Faustus, the main idea being discussed is that no one is fully good or fully evil.  Question 11, of the Dr. Faustus Socratic Seminar questions asks "How does Marlowe portray evil"?.  The fact that Faustus is willing to sell his soul to the devil is the most straight forward way to portray evil, but what if Faustus was unaware of what he was truly doing.  Upon making a deal with the demon, Mephistophilis, Faustus did not have an entire understanding of his actions.  So how can Faustus be labeled as an evil person for doing an "evil" act if he was unaware.  Also on the other hand with Mephistophilis, who we would automatically is evil since he is a demon.  However he attempts to dissuade Faustus from selling his soul.  Wouldn't we label that as something only a good person is capable of, not an evil demon.  Even in everyday life examples of good and evil are numerous.  It is interesting how human-beings must categorize everything they witness into being either all good or all evil.  There is no gray area or room for redemption.  We either want to see people succeed or fail, just as we want there to also be the answer that is good or the answer that is evil.  Humans want to room for interpretation.  An evil act must be done by and evil person and good acts only come from good people.

February Blog: Survival vs. Hope

One of the discussion questions of A Thousand Splendid Suns Socratic seminar questions asks if this was a story of survival or one of hope.  I feel that each of the protagonists, Laila and Mariam, live for either one of these reasons.  For Mariam, her entire life has been a struggle for survival and the main reason she is so submissive towards Rasheed, until the end, is strictly so he won't beat her to death.  Mariam never had an understanding of what life is like outside of poverty and tyranny.  For Laila she knew life was better than what her life was like for Rasheed.  It was the hope that things would get better that drove Laila to endure her life with Rasheed.  By stashing away money and planning an escape, Laila had hope and determination that somewhere life was better than her current situation.  Laila hoped to escape from this abusive relationship and Mariam did only what Nana told her she should do, endure.  For many women even in this country the struggle for survival and hope is a real part of their lives.  For most women being in an abusive relationship it is simple a struggle for survival not to be beat to death but also a struggle for hope that one day their situation might get better.  When you are in a struggle for survival you have to hope that you will survive.

January Blog: Breadwinner or homemaker

Number 5 of The Awakening Socratic Seminar questions talks about Adele Ratignolle whether or not she is an admirable and exemplary human being or that she is something less important.  I think that the purpose of Adele is to represent what every mother, wife, and woman, of the Creole society should model their lives after.  She is the complete opposite of Edna who does not love her husband and rarely thinks about her children.  Unlike Edna, Adele is the type of woman who would sacrifice anything for her children, even herself.  This is the one aspect of Edna, which she says she could never give up even for her children.  For Edna, her own self is the only thing she had complete control over.  I feel that these two different women explain how many different women live their lives today.  Some women wish to be the perfect wife and stay at home mom where many other women wish to go after their own career and life.  Even in today's society many women who choose to put their whole lives into their career and opt not to have a family are considered selfish.  It is almost taboo for the woman to be the breadwinner in our own modern society, even if she is married and has children.  It is still expected for woman to make less money than men and stay at home caring for the children and being the perfect homemaker.  In my family my mom chose to work on her career and wait to have children.  Unlike Edna my mom had that time to find herself and form herself into the person she wanted to be before she raised children.  And unlike my mom's mother who was married and had children at a very young age put her entire life into her children.  Her entire self was her children, while my mom has herself separate from her children.  It does not mean she does not love my sister and I any less, she just has a part of her life that is entirely her.  The same applies to Edna, she does not love her children any less she simply needs that part of herself that only she can access.

December Blog: Cultural Relativism

The main problem people have with Cultural Relativism is it all depends on where you were raised and your culture.  Every culture has its own customs, religion, food, etc., but when we get into the argument of what is morally right and wrong is when problems arise with Cultural Relativism.  Its hard for people to accept something that is morally right or wrong in their culture, when that same idea is the complete opposite in another culture.  The difference between what to do with their dead fathers in the Greek and the Callatian cultures shows their opinions of what is right and what is wrong.
Even in today's world we see things that are not socially acceptable to us, but may be in another culture in another part of the world.  Even between people in the same society can have different opinions on what is morally right and wrong.  For example in our society many people believe that abortion is morally wrong, yet many other people in our same society believe it is something that should be a choice and it is acceptable if the mother chooses to do so.  The difference between what is right and wrong is a major issue in Cultural Relativism, but it is also present in individuals of the same society.  Personally I believe that each persons idea of right and wrong is strongly influenced by their culture and the society they live in, but also by their parents or whoever raised them.

November Blog: Loyalty or Authority?

Question 4 of the Hamlet Socratic Seminar questions asks if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are true friends of Hamlet?  Even though Hamlet entrusted Rosencrantz and Guildestern with the duty of protecting his secret about his plot of revenge,since he thought he could trust the loyalty of his best friends, they still gave him up when questioned by the king.  However the authority of the king may have been too much for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to handle.  In everyday life we are entrusted daily with secrets from our friends.  Loyalty and trust go along with keeping these secrets, however in a time of questioning by an extremely strong authority figure, a king in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's case, even the most true and loyal friend could be intimidated into revealing the truth.
We also tend to reveal friends' secrets to authority figures if we know they could be in danger or that they are in the wrong.  However in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's case it was clear that the king wanted information in order to hinder Hamlet, not protect him.  I would have called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern true friends of Hamlet if they revealed his secret in order to protect him.  Personally if a friend of mine was in danger I would reveal anything in order to save them, however this is not the case with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  They were well aware of Hamlet's intentions and the situation which drove his actions, or lack of.  They knew that the king was highly suspected of killing Hamlet's father and they still revealed Hamlet's intentions.
Whether it be in loyalty of the king or in fear of the king they still are in a gray area when it comes to deciding if they are true friends of Hamlet.  Revealing the secrets of a close friend could put anyone in the gray area of being a true friend.  Yet I believe it all depends on the secret and the situation in which it is reveal to decided if that person was in the right or the wrong.  If I had told a friend to keep a secret that could potentially put me in danger and they did NOT tell an authority figure I would question if they were true friends.  It all depends on the situation, but in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's case they put there friend in danger by revealing his secret.

Fate in Today's Society

In today's society we are constantly thinking about whether or not we are in control of our lives or if it is all up to fate.  Oedipus is continuously at battle with fate and the fact that his whole life is already predestined.  I would like to think that I do have some type of control over my life and I feel that's the thought process of most people.  However the idea that a higher power controls our lives is more of a religious idea.  Since today's society is less religious than that of Oedipus's, people lean more towards the chaos theory, nothing is controlling their decisions and nothing happens for a reason. 
For those who do believe in fate they could argue that since they don't have control over their lives they aren't going to fight it, on the other hand they could try to change their fate and believe that they have control over their lives.  People who don't believe in fate could have similar views, either that they are in total control of what happens to them or that since there is no meaning of life and we're not here for any special reason they are going to do whatever they want.  Personally I think that we are here for a reason.  That's what separates us from animals the curiosity of what we're doing. 
I feel that if we were just here according to the chaos theory than we wouldn't have the question of what is the meaning of life and are we in control of what happens to us.  I also tend to notice that people who claim that there is no meaning of life and just don't care aren't motivated to live their lives to the fullest and people who do believe that we are here for some reason try to live each day fully and are more likely to be successful in life.  I also notice ,and this is just a personal observation, that the people who do believe in a reason for living have some form a religion.  And those people who have a religion just tend to be more motivated because they have something to live for and those who just don't have faith in anything appear to be miserable and aren't motivated in living life.  I just would like to think that I am in control of what happens to my life but I also hope we are here for a reason.