This is my Humanities Seminar Page! Here I will be writing about the Socratic seminars that our class has done, and my reflections. Have Fun!
(A Poem)
By Wilfred Owen
#1. React to one of your classmate’s comments from the seminar.
In the seminar, when we were discussing if we think that "Dulce et decorum est" is a lie, Elliott brought up that maybe it isn’t everyone else that is lying, it is really us lying to ourselves. He also said that maybe we lie to convince ourselves that it is the right thing to do to go to war, and we have to tell ourselves this in order to cope with the reality. I strongly agree with this statement. Even though this quote was used by propaganda and it was a common phrase, I think that many people used it to get through war, and to cope with themselves – some way of coming to terms. I do think that it is a lie, one that we tell to ourselves.
#2. What have you learned from this seminar process about reading and interpreting poetry? Use specific examples to back up your ideas.
One thing that I have learned during this seminar process is that it is important to read the poem many times, especially out loud. Sometimes it is necessary to go line by line, in order to understand the true meaning of the poem. Also, I feel like the poem gets stronger each time I read it – at first it was strong, but the message didn’t have time to sink in. After the 2nd, 3rd, 4th reading, the story was vivid, and the message was potent. Seminaring on this poem also helped me to think about how this poem relates to the world today, and how it affects us. "That old lie; Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori" – It makes you think about if this line still applies today, if we still delude ourselves that it is true, and how these types of lies affect war in general.
#3. Is it ever sweet and right to die for your country? Develop and support your argument in a paragraph.
I think that there may be times when it is right to die for your country, but I don’t really think that it is ever sweet. Of course, this should be a personal decision if you want to die for your country – I don’t think that it is right to die for your country if you don’t want to (like if you’re drafted). I think that at times, it is a necessary evil if there is something that really needs to be fought for. But even then, when it right, I don’t think that it could be sweet. I really don’t see how "the blood come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs" could be sweet in anyone’s book. Perhaps it was necessary that this person die, but it definitely wasn’t sweet. To die for your country can be right, but it cannot be sweet.
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of a New Man
(A Painting)
By Salvador Dali
I drift over. I knew that I would have to again at some point, I just didn’t think that it would be this soon. This time, I notice that things look different. The light – it’s almost sickly. I wonder if this birth is going to be a good one.
It has happened in the past, where the birth is horribly gruesome and the result is disastrous and becomes a full-grown monster from the beginning. Though this one doesn’t seem quite as extreme, merely disruptive.
I get closer. I can see the crack now, getting larger by the second. I can see the geopoliticus child and his parent watching the birth. The child peers out from behind his parent, curious at the new development in his future kingdom. He seems to think that this will be a good thing for our earth. His parent, not so much. It is telling him about this thing that is coming out. It doesn’t think much of it. It believes that it will hurt, but it’s seen it before, many times. When it was young, it used to get excited and think that something good will come out of it, but now, it is weary of all of this, simply ready for the child to take over. And the child is more than willing.
I am nearly there now, and I can see the hills, tower, and figures in the background. The light casts an eerie light to everything, making even the elegant figures seem sinister in the green and orange glow.
Then, I fall into place above the writhing mass. I see my counterpart below, having gotten here much earlier. That is his job though, being prepared early on, ready to catch anything that might come out. I am more of protection, once the earth opens up. And, of course, for the man that will come out of the earth. I protect against storms, predators, the elements, and anything that threatens the creature. Most importantly though, I protect against the truth, the truth that could harm such a young creature. Though as time goes on, I protect him less and less, and slowly drift off, leaving the man to fend for himself, with the reality and truth of the earth, his to realize.
Of course, since my counterpart gets here earlier than me, he will get to leave after the birth takes place. Instead of protecting the man, he protects the earth from the effects of the birth, the pain and blood.
As I watch, the crack gets bigger, growing and growing, splitting down the middle. I can see the sides stretching, heaving, contorting with the creature’s struggles. I realize that maybe this is going to be worse than I thought. As the crack gets wider and the creature forces his way slowly outside, I see the continents dripping and peeling off the earth. I begin to think twice about protecting this man. If he could do this to the earth, than maybe he shouldn’t be here, and I shouldn’t protect him. But I realize it is too late – an arm pops out. His muscular body appears in the crack, the rest of him straining in the gum of the earth. Then, his head forces it’s way out and it turns up towards me. Our eyes lock, and I know it is too late to go back. Whatever this man is, good or bad, it is mine to look after until the geopoliticus child grows up. Finally, after eons of convulsing and straining, the man fully climbs out.
The man is strong and muscular, and the child looks on in wonder, the parent in utter fear and horror. This is irrelevant though. He is now under my protection, and nothing can hurt him. But my counterpart is done. He slithers away, unnoticed by any present except for me. Because he is gone, my job is starting. As the man climbs on top of the mound, the earth closes up, only leaving a small pool of blood.
The parent leads the child away, knowing that the time will come when she will have to come back, but for now, the man is in good hands. The man saunters off, with me hovering above him, a shadow in the sky for many years to come.
The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas
By Ursula K. LeGuin
Seminar Reflection
When you asked the question about why we think that pain is more intellectual, nobody was really sure what to say. It seemed like we all just talked, without really answering the question, because we just didn’t know. Alicia had been wanting to talk for a while, and once she did I think that we were all glad. She came up with a great response to why we think that pain is intellectual and happiness is simple. What she said was something along the lines of ‘we can’t define happiness, but we can define pain’. Before this, I had been trying to find some kind of reason, any kind of explanation as to why we thought that pain was intellectual. Once she said this, it made so much more sense. It seemed like other people weren’t quite getting what she said, so I kind of rephrased it the way that I understood it. It seemed like I rephrased it properly, and everyone understood it too. It’s weird how you can think about something for a while, but still not come up with any kind of answer, then all of a sudden, it makes sense. My new understanding is that because happiness is hard to define and different for everyone, so it is hard to master. But pain is tangible, the same for everyone, and definitive, so you can master it and control it much easier, so we think of it as more intellectual.
The way that I thought of the ones who walk away from omelas is kind of like the savage/people on the reservation in brave new world. They both have this sort of utopian world, everyone is happy where they are, but there are flaws in both worlds. One of the main differences I think is that in omelas the people are complex, but the world is simple, but in brave new world, the people are simple, but the world is complex. The part that really struck me as alike was the similarity of the outsiders of each of these worlds. In omelas, it is the ones who walk away, and in brave new world, it is the savage. Rather than living in the world that is around them, that seems like a utopia, they see the flaws and realize that this ruins this place for them, so they leave (or in the savage’s case, kill themselves).
Is it more moral to stay in Omelas or to walk away? Why?
Honestly, I think that it depends on the person, and their personal morals. For me though, I think that I would leave. I feel like if I lived there after knowing that the child was in the room, it would feel like I was living in a lie. All of the happiness wouldn’t be real, we would just be ignoring an obvious horror, and pretending that it wasn’t there. Everything would seem fake, not real happiness. It just wouldn’t seem right. In lines 159-160, she says, "Sometimes a man or woman much older falls silent for a day or two, and then leaves home." I think that these people fall silent, because they are thinking about everything. They realize that they can’t be happy with the child. So they leave.
At the same time, I could see how you could want to stay in omelas. It is a pretty good deal for you – unlimited happiness for everyone, at the price of one small life. Just one. And you accept it – moving on with your life, and being happy because you can. This is what the people of omelas do, "they all understand that their happiness…depends wholly on this child’s abominable misery." I think that this is the only way that they can continue to live in omelas, without feeling guilty. And when you think about it like that, it doesn’t seem nearly as bad. The same way that war seems moral when you think of the lives it could save. But in reality, that is one life, one that you could be saving. Staying in omelas wouldn’t be moral, because you are letting the child suffer, and not helping. I think that leaving omelas would be moral though, because you aren’t really harming anyone. Well, you might be harming yourself, but that is your choice to make, and I think that harming yourself is more moral because it is your choice.
Where do the ones who leave go?
Is there more to the world of omelas? Or is it just the town?
She says "those are the terms". This implies that there was some kind of deal - was there?
I think that there was at some point in time. It seems kind of like they were cursed in some weird way. Although they are happy, they have this child that they always have to have, and rely on. As I said in the question, she said "Those are the terms," and "The terms are strict and absolute". Which, in my opinion, is evidence towards there being some kind of deal. Rather than a deal with someone else, I think that it is with themselves. Maybe they did something wrong, or something went wrong with their system, or a huge catastrophe. So they created the child to keep everyone happy, and keep the balance in place. That was when they made these terms, and they have kept omelas a happy place. Side note: it would be super fun to write a background story on omelas and how they got here.
Random bit of feedback: I don’t know about the quiet group, but I don’t think that the putting the loud group together worked that well. I think we had good ideas, but it was really hard to talk. Towards the end, I kept trying to talk (a great text connection!), but I wasn’t able to and just gave up. I prefer the mix.
Being Peace
By Thich Nhat Hanh
During the seminar, we talked about how the west doesn’t really want to (or just don’t) find themselves. Many people expressed the belief that maybe we are afraid of what we might find when we find ourselves. I hadn’t thought of that aspect before – I only thought of the convenience side of things (as stated in my pre-write). Basically, people don’t have the time to meditate and find themselves. This is the way that I feel, in addition to the fact that I don’t really see the need to find myself. I mean, I can see how it could help me, but I feel like I can live a good and happy life without it. Maybe at some point in the future I can, but right now I am too busy. What the other people were talking about – not wanting to because you are afraid of what you will find – I don’t really see in me. Then again, maybe that is the point of it – you deny it for other reasons, but the real reason is more subconscious. Either way, I think that the only way that more of the west will start finding themselves is if most of our system is rebuilt. The way it is now, I don’t think there is a possibility of people finding themselves because there simply isn’t enough time and the mentality isn’t right for it.
Are there ever ideologies or doctrines that are worth killing or dying for?
“Human life is more precious than any ideology or doctrine.” I personally agree with this statement. That is one of the things that I really liked about this particular religion. They value the goals of the religion more than the actual religion. I think that this is the trouble with far too many religions. Most of them have really great goals, (to be kind, not murder, etc.) but they seem to focus too much on the actual religion. And it seems like so many people would do so much for their religion, but what they do is often against so many of the religion’s values.
In reality though, I think that there are some ideologies or doctrines worth dying for (if you believe in it enough). There may actually be some ideologies or doctrines that are worth killing for. The thing is, most ideologies are against the sort of behavior that people do to protect them. So, it goes against your religion to protect your religion. Of course, there are ways to protect or defend your ideology without going against it, but in most cases in history, that isn’t the way it has went. When Thich Nhat Hanh is describing the first mindfulness training, he says, “The raft is not the shore.” By this, I think he is trying to say exactly what I was saying before. Basically, people cling to the thing (the religion) that is taking you the end goal (what the religion teaches). So, I think that a religion isn’t worth killing for if it goes against what the religion teaches. As far as dying for a religion, I think that it is up to the person as to whether or not they decide to die for it.
I think that it is really interesting to think about how Buddhism fits into jihad and mcworld. I think that it has aspects of both within it, and it also contradicts many aspects of them. For example, Buddhism seems like it would support the idea of small communities that are tightly knit, but they don’t support violence or judging people for who they are (whether it be race or religion). It doesn’t seem like it flows within the idea of huge corporations using others for political gain (this is actually in the tenth mindfulness training), but it does support the idea of everyone being equal. It seems like the Buddhists’ cross between jihad and mcworld would be a very pleasant one though, but I wonder if it would be good for everyone. I think that I would enjoy it at first, but I may get bored with it. Either way though, it would be a far safer world than we have now or would with either jihad or mcworld.
Seminar Reflection
Jihad vs. Mcworld
By Benjamin Barger
Seminar Reflection
One of the most intriguing things to me during this seminar was the way that Jihad and McWorld were portrayed. It seemed like people had a very limited view of both, though I admit that I thought about it the same way at times. But the way that I am now thinking about it is a scale with Jihad on one end and McWorld on the other. There is the extreme mcworld – everyone being the same, blanket dullness and passiveness over everything, and extreme Jihad – constant violence and ever smaller countries. Then, in between these are varying degrees of each. I think that this is a more realistic interpretation of the two global economies. In all honesty though, I don’t think that we will get to either end of the scale – there will always be someone who will resist the system, and as long as we have that urge, we will be moving about the scale, introducing new ideas as we go. So it’s not really accurate to say that we have to have one end result. In the past, there have probably been many times when we thought that we were going to get stuck with some horrible fate, but as of yet, we seem to be doing fine. Basically, I don’t think that we need to get overly worried (I mean we do, global warming and such, but not about this) because we have gotten out of it in the past, and we can do it again. Things have always changed, and they will continue on that way.
Deogratias (a Graphic Novel)
By Jean-Philippe Stassen
Seminar Reflection:What was the most interesting idea from the Deogratias Seminar? Explain why you think is so interesting, and how it helped you to better understand the book.
I think that the most interesting idea from the seminar was how Deogratias changed into a dog, and how that affected his character. I know that we had done work on the dog bit of his character before, but at the time I was going through this short phase where I couldn’t concentrate on anything, so when we did studied that I didn’t actually get anything out of it. That is why this discussion on the dog really opened up a lot of things for me that I didn’t’ think about before. One of those was how the white people were known to own dogs. I never connected this to the way that Deogratias was treated and how it played into his character. I think that connection makes Deogratias’ character much more complex, it makes the change to a dog clearer, and the whole idea makes more sense than it did before.
How do you think your group's seminar went? Explain why, with specific examples.
I think that in general our seminar went pretty well. We got pretty into the last questions, but on the first ones we got off topic (for example, the star wars thing). I think that we also had trouble sticking to the question. We would build on the original question and roam far from it, and by that point we had already forgotten what the question was. Then you (Lori) would bring us back on topic, and we would be stumped yet again. It seemed like we just couldn’t get into those first topics, and we just scratched the surface, but we couldn’t seem to make ourselves get deeper into it. Then, on the last question or two, we would get really into it and answer the question really well. To me, it seems like this is a pattern – it happened last time too (maybe the time before that as well, I’m not sure).
Slaughterhouse-Five
By Kurt Vonnegut
Seminar ReflectionIdentify a comment made by someone else during the seminar. React to his/her statement. This could be a statement you though was interesting, that you strongly agree or disagree with, that made you question, that you are still thinking about…
When I brought up whether or not Billy was always passive or if he became passive after the war, Ashley mentioned the part in the book when Billy was thrown into the pool as a kid and he sank. When she said it, it seemed like she meant it to support the idea that he wasn’t always passive. This confused me, so I tried to clarify, and she repeated that was what she meant. But then someone else started talking, so I didn’t get to ask her why she thought that. Personally, I think that the fact that he just let himself sink when he could have swam makes it seem more like he has always been passive, and it wasn’t just the war that did this to him. I think that he has always been passive, but being in the war and having so many people die just made him more than he was before.
Explain how the seminar influenced or changed your thinking about this topic or text. How is your thinking now different than it was before the seminar?
I think that now I have a better understanding of the text, and the ideas behind it. Before the seminar, I was still kind of confused and thought that I grasped the concepts but wasn’t entirely sure – it was still kind of foggy. Now, it is still a bit hard to completely comprehend, but I am much closer to the goal of understanding the book and the meanings behind it. Before this, I had disregarded the question of ‘Did Billy really go to Tralfamadore?’ because it didn’t seem like a legitimate question. This is a character we are talking about here, who is in a book, so how could he have possibly gone or not gone to Tralfamadore when the whole thing is fictitious. It seemed like a moot point to me. Now, I understand it more, and I get that what the question means is ‘Was the author trying to say that he went to Tralfamadore, or did Billy make it all up?’ I think that I definitely understand that aspect of the story much more than I did before.
Make a connection between the issues discussed in this seminar and another topic or idea (news story, novel, experience, event, your choices, movie, song, article, class…)
When we read this book one of the questions we were asked was something like, ‘What did the author want the message of this book to be?’ I find this an odd question – how could you know what an author is thinking or why he wrote it that way? You can always try to interpret it one way or another, but the only person who will ever know exactly why it was written or the message is the author. This reminds me of when we were doing the structured academic controversies, and Elliott and I were debating about what Winston Churchill thought or did. It went on and on, but eventually we realized that it was pointless to debate it because we could never actually know what went on his brain. I think that these two things are similar, because they both come down to what one person was thinking, and then you realize that you could never know.
The Roots Of War - Sept. 3
Seminar Reflection#1. Reaction: Identify a comment made by someone else during the seminar. React to his/her statement. This could be a statement you thought was interesting, that you strongly agree or disagree with, that made you question, that you are still thinking about…
The first question (or at least I think it was the first), was something like “what do you think she means by the roots of war?” We all thought about it for a little while, then Zach (not sure if I spelled that right) said that he thought that it described the way that she thought war spread. Everybody else kind of disagreed, but I realized that I had never thought about it before. When I read the title, I just assumed it meant where war began and came from. When I had finished the article, I was somewhat disappointed because I didn’t feel like it had answered that question of where war came from. It only seemed to say where it didn’t come from, or what isn’t working in trying to abolish it. She never really said where it did come from or what we should do to abolish it. Therefore I was kind of confused on why she decided to name it this – there would be many other titles that would fit better. So when Zach said that, it made me realize that maybe that isn’t what the title means. There were other explanations for the title, but this was the one that made me realize that what it seemed to me to be at first might not be what it really is.
#2. Changes in Thinking: Explain how the seminar influenced or changed your thinking about this topic or text. How is your thinking now different than it was before the seminar?
This seminar helped me to realize that some people actually do believe that war is necessary. I didn’t think that anyone could think that war being abolished would be a bad thing. The idea that economic war would be worse than physical war never occurred to me, and at first, it didn’t make sense. I’m still not sure that economic war is worse, but it is definitely something to consider that I hadn’t thought of before. This seminar has helped me to realize that there is more than just my opinion on this topic. It always seems like I realize the same thing after every seminar, but I suppose that is what they are for.
#3. Connections: Make a connection between the issues discussed in this seminar and another topic or idea (news story, novel, experience, event, your choices, movie, song, article, class…)
It was cool to see the interaction between this article and the one that we read before it (Germany Germany Germany
#4. Self-Evaluation: From the categories below, which one do you believe you were the strongest in and why? Which one would you like to improve on for the next seminar and how do you plan to do that?
I think that during this seminar, I did the best in communication. I didn’t speak a lot, but when I did, it was to introduce a new idea, or contribute my opinion – it wasn’t just ‘I agree with him’. In some seminars, I talk more, or contribute more to the conversation, and in others I don’t. This was one where I didn’t as much. As with anything, there are some topics that interest me more and others that don’t. So, depending on how interested I am in the topic, I will use more of the categories. When I don’t have anything beneficial to say, I won’t really talk or make connections much. So I do hope that I can make outside connections and personal connections more next time, even when the topic doesn’t interest me as much.
During the seminar, we talked about how the west doesn’t really want to (or just don’t) find themselves. Many people expressed the belief that maybe we are afraid of what we might find when we find ourselves. I hadn’t thought of that aspect before – I only thought of the convenience side of things (as stated in my pre-write). Basically, people don’t have the time to meditate and find themselves. This is the way that I feel, in addition to the fact that I don’t really see the need to find myself. I mean, I can see how it could help me, but I feel like I can live a good and happy life without it. Maybe at some point in the future I can, but right now I am too busy. What the other people were talking about – not wanting to because you are afraid of what you will find – I don’t really see in me. Then again, maybe that is the point of it – you deny it for other reasons, but the real reason is more subconscious. Either way, I think that the only way that more of the west will start finding themselves is if most of our system is rebuilt. The way it is now, I don’t think there is a possibility of people finding themselves because there simply isn’t enough time and the mentality isn’t right for it.
Are there ever ideologies or doctrines that are worth killing or dying for?
"Human life is more precious than any ideology or doctrine." I personally agree with this statement. That is one of the things that I really liked about this particular religion. They value the goals of the religion more than the actual religion. I think that this is the trouble with far too many religions. Most of them have really great goals, (to be kind, not murder, etc.) but they seem to focus too much on the actual religion. And it seems like so many people would do so much for their religion, but what they do is often against so many of the religion’s values.
In reality though, I think that there are some ideologies or doctrines worth dying for (if you believe in it enough). There may actually be some ideologies or doctrines that are worth killing for. The thing is, most ideologies are against the sort of behavior that people do to protect them. So, it goes against your religion to protect your religion. Of course, there are ways to protect or defend your ideology without going against it, but in most cases in history, that isn’t the way it has went. When Thich Nhat Hanh is describing the first mindfulness training, he says, "The raft is not the shore." By this, I think he is trying to say exactly what I was saying before. Basically, people cling to the thing (the religion) that is taking you the end goal (what the religion teaches). So, I think that a religion isn’t worth killing for if it goes against what the religion teaches. As far as dying for a religion, I think that it is up to the person as to whether or not they decide to die for it.
I think that it is really interesting to think about how Buddhism fits into jihad and mcworld. I think that it has aspects of both within it, and it also contradicts many aspects of them. For example, Buddhism seems like it would support the idea of small communities that are tightly knit, but they don’t support violence or judging people for who they are (whether it be race or religion). It doesn’t seem like it flows within the idea of huge corporations using others for political gain (this is actually in the tenth mindfulness training), but it does support the idea of everyone being equal. It seems like the Buddhists’ cross between jihad and mcworld would be a very pleasant one though, but I wonder if it would be good for everyone. I think that I would enjoy it at first, but I may get bored with it. Either way though, it would be a far safer world than we have now or would with either jihad or mcworld.
