Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.
Page 63 Section 35c : "But apart from all question of appearances, gentlemen, I do not think that it is just for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so; he ought to inform them of the facts and convince them by argument"
I chose this statement from Socrates' trail because I thought it once again showed him in the democratic and just light. These type of statements would have really helped Socrates out if it wasn't for the jury's predetermend decision. It made the situation seem like Socrates was a saint and the prosecution as unjust jerks. After reading this I really started to side with Socrates and believing that he was in the right while his prosecutors were really criminals who thought that they were above the law.
5.17.2007
5.16.2007
The Apology 5/17
Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.
Page 52 Section 27a: "You are not at all convincing, Meletus; not even to yourself I suspect."
I chose this because it really showed how easy Socrates was able to bend the prosecution's words and turn it right back on them. Here the prosecution was claming that he didn't believe in the Gods at all and Socrates simply shakes it off and showes him how he is contradicting himself. In the trial it would have been right there, that if I were a juror I would have really thought twice about my pre-chosen conviction of guilty. I think that this part shows how unfair the trail really was despite how easily Socrates was able to show his innocence.
Page 52 Section 27a: "You are not at all convincing, Meletus; not even to yourself I suspect."
I chose this because it really showed how easy Socrates was able to bend the prosecution's words and turn it right back on them. Here the prosecution was claming that he didn't believe in the Gods at all and Socrates simply shakes it off and showes him how he is contradicting himself. In the trial it would have been right there, that if I were a juror I would have really thought twice about my pre-chosen conviction of guilty. I think that this part shows how unfair the trail really was despite how easily Socrates was able to show his innocence.
5.15.2007
The Apology 5/16
Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion:
"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft."
I think that what this is saying is that just because we as humans desire high quality things does not make us greedy, it is simply human nature. Human nature makes you want exiusate things but that doesn't make you extravagant, that only makes you human. And when it says that the love of the mind doesn't make you soft, I think that that means that just because you are concerned with things that men aren't nesscesarily expected to concern themselves with (i.e. combat) doesn't make you any less of the man and instead makes you more of one.
"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft."
I think that what this is saying is that just because we as humans desire high quality things does not make us greedy, it is simply human nature. Human nature makes you want exiusate things but that doesn't make you extravagant, that only makes you human. And when it says that the love of the mind doesn't make you soft, I think that that means that just because you are concerned with things that men aren't nesscesarily expected to concern themselves with (i.e. combat) doesn't make you any less of the man and instead makes you more of one.
Pericles Funeral Oration 5/15
Make a list of some of the Athenian values that you encountered in the text. Choose one and write a couple of sentences (or more) about why it might be good for the trial of Socrates.
- They try to make a government others want to model
- They don't try to build walls or borders around their land; they are open to the world
- Individuals are not only interested in them selves but in the government and state's as well.
- They make friends by doing good to others, not by receiving good from them.
4.24.2007
Jigsaw 4/25
1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic. (a couple of sentences)
My section talks about how the aftermath effects on American citizens brought forth an extremely sensitive situation involving free speech. A good resolution would be that it was not right for the media to censor pundits and opinions that rebelled against the President or provide a second opinion on the happenings of 9/11
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)
The censorship that the media and hollywood placed on people who had minority opinions was wrong because it envoked our constitutional right for free speech, but at the same time you have to use your brain before you speek. You understand that the nation is in a very sensitve greeving point and you should accept that when making a statement that could be strewed as offensive or hurtful. Now that doesn't mean you can't say it but it means that you should think before you speak.
3) Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side (2-4 sentences total).
I think the best point was brought up by the conclusion of the con argument. "The Hollywood celebrities on the left think they can do or say whatever they please and face no criticism or consequences. It's time for them to wake up and join the real world. Until then, our First Amendment rights continue to be strong. Just as strong are the consequencese for using those First Amendment rights without first using our brain." I used this quote because I thought that it really summed up their points well.
My section talks about how the aftermath effects on American citizens brought forth an extremely sensitive situation involving free speech. A good resolution would be that it was not right for the media to censor pundits and opinions that rebelled against the President or provide a second opinion on the happenings of 9/11
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)
The censorship that the media and hollywood placed on people who had minority opinions was wrong because it envoked our constitutional right for free speech, but at the same time you have to use your brain before you speek. You understand that the nation is in a very sensitve greeving point and you should accept that when making a statement that could be strewed as offensive or hurtful. Now that doesn't mean you can't say it but it means that you should think before you speak.
3) Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side (2-4 sentences total).
I think the best point was brought up by the conclusion of the con argument. "The Hollywood celebrities on the left think they can do or say whatever they please and face no criticism or consequences. It's time for them to wake up and join the real world. Until then, our First Amendment rights continue to be strong. Just as strong are the consequencese for using those First Amendment rights without first using our brain." I used this quote because I thought that it really summed up their points well.
Freedom of Speech in Times of Crises
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "The press should be censored in times of crisis."
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
Viewpoint 4/23
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
3) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
3) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
4.18.2007
Don Imus Assignment 4/19
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich's main point is that freedom of speech makes it so that you have the freedom to say whatever you want no matter what affects that it has. Rich also points out that Imus isn't the only comedian or shock jock that could face reprocusions from the desicion to can him.
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
Republic Assignment 4/18
1) What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?
I think that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
I think that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
4.16.2007
Best Comment Award 4/17
I agree with Dulce and Paige that this is a great peice because of the fact you used descriptive writing. I also see that you used great vocabulary like climatic....i had no clue wat that ment until i read it in your writing. i also get mad when mr. commerson does not let us out on time.
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
3.27.2007
Republic Assignment 3/28
1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer?
I think that the only reason that Plato would want to censor Homer is because his stories of the past bring up lots of acts of violence and wrongdoings. The people might want this stuff censored because it could insite violence or make them feel worse about themselves and their own country and government.
2. Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences
a. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?
Anything that would act as a disrespectful thing towards the king or government. Plus stuff that would cast a depressing or negative view on the afterlife.
b. What should poetry “teach” and why?
I think that poetry should teach values to young men and women that will help them grow up into a better civilian or somebody that will contribute to his or her fellow man. Somethings that this may include could be bravery, intellegence, hope, and leadership.
3. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?
No, I would disagree with what Plato thinks is right. Censoring things only makes society less intellectual. People can only have a purpose if they are in their own, somebody different. The only way that can happen is by having them form their own ideas and opinions and ideas on different issues. By banning material that could potentially create different sides to an argument you are taking away the minds capacity for knowledge.
I think that the only reason that Plato would want to censor Homer is because his stories of the past bring up lots of acts of violence and wrongdoings. The people might want this stuff censored because it could insite violence or make them feel worse about themselves and their own country and government.
2. Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences
a. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?
Anything that would act as a disrespectful thing towards the king or government. Plus stuff that would cast a depressing or negative view on the afterlife.
b. What should poetry “teach” and why?
I think that poetry should teach values to young men and women that will help them grow up into a better civilian or somebody that will contribute to his or her fellow man. Somethings that this may include could be bravery, intellegence, hope, and leadership.
3. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?
No, I would disagree with what Plato thinks is right. Censoring things only makes society less intellectual. People can only have a purpose if they are in their own, somebody different. The only way that can happen is by having them form their own ideas and opinions and ideas on different issues. By banning material that could potentially create different sides to an argument you are taking away the minds capacity for knowledge.
3.26.2007
Republic Assignment 3/27
1) Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people wanted to censor Hesiod and Homer because they wrote about things that could in theory encourage mutinous thoughts in society. This in turn would incite violence against the government or anything that holds up the working society. So in turn Plato or others would want to censor this disrupting text.
2) a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
misrepresenting the nature of the gods
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
God is the cause of everything good in the world and if they decided to punish it was for a good reason.
3) Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I think that I was close but still a little off on the details. I wrote that they censored to protect government and social structure, but they say the the censorship was for the protection of the gods reputations.
I think that people wanted to censor Hesiod and Homer because they wrote about things that could in theory encourage mutinous thoughts in society. This in turn would incite violence against the government or anything that holds up the working society. So in turn Plato or others would want to censor this disrupting text.
2) a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
misrepresenting the nature of the gods
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
God is the cause of everything good in the world and if they decided to punish it was for a good reason.
3) Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I think that I was close but still a little off on the details. I wrote that they censored to protect government and social structure, but they say the the censorship was for the protection of the gods reputations.
3.21.2007
Seminar Assignment 3/22
1) What do you think is the best definition of justice? It can be one of the views expressed in The Republic, a modification of one or more of them, or something completely different
In my mind the best definition of justice to one is something that one feels is morally correct. Unfortunatly this does may not work for everbody, for instance if one person thinks that expressing yourself through violence is just, and another person thinks the opposite the morals collide and we have a situation that doesn't fit together. In the end, the only kind of justice that can work in a society is through some sort of compromisation.
The best definition for justice in a society is a moral system that works to benifit everybody. This way everybody is happy and unharmed. Unfortunatly this is an example of a utopia that is not possible with our human society. People do not all share the same moral system and cannot function as a perfect whole without there being someone to screw it all up.
In my mind the best definition of justice to one is something that one feels is morally correct. Unfortunatly this does may not work for everbody, for instance if one person thinks that expressing yourself through violence is just, and another person thinks the opposite the morals collide and we have a situation that doesn't fit together. In the end, the only kind of justice that can work in a society is through some sort of compromisation.
The best definition for justice in a society is a moral system that works to benifit everybody. This way everybody is happy and unharmed. Unfortunatly this is an example of a utopia that is not possible with our human society. People do not all share the same moral system and cannot function as a perfect whole without there being someone to screw it all up.
3.20.2007
Republic Assignment 3/21
In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness?
In my opinion, acting justly means obeying the current set of laws that are set in place by government to better the condition of society. For instance: do not murder people. I think that this is a pretty just law because killing other people just isn't very nice when you get down to it. Now that, that has been established let me share my opinion of happyness. To me, happyness is a state of the mind in which you are in a worry and guilt free situation and when you have something to look forward to. So by acting in the confines of set justice (for instance not murdering people) you will not have the pressure of your conscience guilt on your shoulders.
Then again for people who have a lack of conscience they have it good because they are always happy yay!
In my opinion, acting justly means obeying the current set of laws that are set in place by government to better the condition of society. For instance: do not murder people. I think that this is a pretty just law because killing other people just isn't very nice when you get down to it. Now that, that has been established let me share my opinion of happyness. To me, happyness is a state of the mind in which you are in a worry and guilt free situation and when you have something to look forward to. So by acting in the confines of set justice (for instance not murdering people) you will not have the pressure of your conscience guilt on your shoulders.
Then again for people who have a lack of conscience they have it good because they are always happy yay!
3.19.2007
3/20 Republic Assignment
1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
Socrates says that if you are following whatever the stronger party says is right even if it is not in their interest, then it is right to go against it.
Then Socrates says that the stronger party is always in the interest of others just like a doctor to its patients, or a teacher to its students.
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Homie T's first point was that injustice can sometimes be just as good as justice
-Socrates says that injustice has punishments and penalties
Then he says that justice is what is good for another person.
-Socrates says that this contradicts his earlier statement that rules are made by the strong for the strong.
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I think that it is okay to harm someone but only in defence or if it is absolutly necessary, not over something unimportant. I believe this because justice is a way to aviod violence or conflict. Therefore before harming another you should try to find a peaceful way to settle it but if that cannot happen then you will need to resort to harm.
I think that Socrates will dissagree with my stance and that Polemarchus would very much encourage it because his stance on justice is to help your friends and to harm your enemies.
Socrates says that if you are following whatever the stronger party says is right even if it is not in their interest, then it is right to go against it.
Then Socrates says that the stronger party is always in the interest of others just like a doctor to its patients, or a teacher to its students.
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Homie T's first point was that injustice can sometimes be just as good as justice
-Socrates says that injustice has punishments and penalties
Then he says that justice is what is good for another person.
-Socrates says that this contradicts his earlier statement that rules are made by the strong for the strong.
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I think that it is okay to harm someone but only in defence or if it is absolutly necessary, not over something unimportant. I believe this because justice is a way to aviod violence or conflict. Therefore before harming another you should try to find a peaceful way to settle it but if that cannot happen then you will need to resort to harm.
I think that Socrates will dissagree with my stance and that Polemarchus would very much encourage it because his stance on justice is to help your friends and to harm your enemies.
3.16.2007
Republic Assignment 3/17
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
No, I actually dissagree with what Polemarchus thinks of justice. Cephalus' thinking on justice is much better, telling the truth and paying your debts is a lot better way to live your life than to spend your whole time hurting your enemies.
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Simonides defines justice as giving everyone their dues. Polemarchus interprets this as helping your friends and hurting your enemies.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates points our that a just man would never hurt a man whether it be friend or enemy for that would not be a just thing to do.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think that Socrates is trying to prove that wisdom and knowledge grows with age.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).
In my opinion, Socrates has a better argument with more reason backing up his assertions. He gives examples such as when he referred to a horse, he said that by hurting a horse you are not making it any better, this is the same when you hurt a person. Socrates understands that hurting people is and should not be part of justice. Above all, Socrates is a philosopher and I tended to listen and trust him more than Polemarchus who isn't and who doesn't back his opinion up with fact.
No, I actually dissagree with what Polemarchus thinks of justice. Cephalus' thinking on justice is much better, telling the truth and paying your debts is a lot better way to live your life than to spend your whole time hurting your enemies.
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Simonides defines justice as giving everyone their dues. Polemarchus interprets this as helping your friends and hurting your enemies.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates points our that a just man would never hurt a man whether it be friend or enemy for that would not be a just thing to do.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think that Socrates is trying to prove that wisdom and knowledge grows with age.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).
In my opinion, Socrates has a better argument with more reason backing up his assertions. He gives examples such as when he referred to a horse, he said that by hurting a horse you are not making it any better, this is the same when you hurt a person. Socrates understands that hurting people is and should not be part of justice. Above all, Socrates is a philosopher and I tended to listen and trust him more than Polemarchus who isn't and who doesn't back his opinion up with fact.
Personal Reflection 3/16
Since Socratic philosophy is largely about definitions, lets start with some of our own. In one paragraph (or more) define what a friend is and how you should act towards a friend?
A friend is another person that you enjoy being around, somebody that you can trust and confide in and somebody that's just fun to talk to or mess around with. Friendship doesn't usually have a mark in time where it goes from darkness to light, it is a slow process that grows in time. Eventually a bond or trust is formed after a certain amount of experience together is amplified by unique conditions. I think that friendship is extremely important to people because the human nature longs to be around others.
It is important to show kindness and trust in your friends or else they might not show kindness and trust in you.
A friend is another person that you enjoy being around, somebody that you can trust and confide in and somebody that's just fun to talk to or mess around with. Friendship doesn't usually have a mark in time where it goes from darkness to light, it is a slow process that grows in time. Eventually a bond or trust is formed after a certain amount of experience together is amplified by unique conditions. I think that friendship is extremely important to people because the human nature longs to be around others.
It is important to show kindness and trust in your friends or else they might not show kindness and trust in you.
3.15.2007
The Republic 3/16
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Cepahlus is Polemarchus' very rich father.
What is the Profession of Cephalus?
It doesn't say in the text what he does but it refers to him as a money-maker.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was just making an offering in the courtyard
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Cephalus describes the virtues of old age to be letting go of your previous masters and desires(such as the sex drive) so that you can live your life peacefully.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
Cepalus thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying ones debts.
What is Socrates responce?
Socrates points out that if you borrowed a weapon from a friend and then he became homicidal it would not be just to return it.
II. Write a one paragraph responce to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephalus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I agree more with Cephalus because his definition is more truthful than anything else. Despite the fact that Socrates can find loopholes with anything that anyone says, Cephalus still has a solid opinion. But if it were up to me to define ideal justice, it would be a system that prevents violence from occuring.
Cepahlus is Polemarchus' very rich father.
What is the Profession of Cephalus?
It doesn't say in the text what he does but it refers to him as a money-maker.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was just making an offering in the courtyard
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Cephalus describes the virtues of old age to be letting go of your previous masters and desires(such as the sex drive) so that you can live your life peacefully.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
Cepalus thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying ones debts.
What is Socrates responce?
Socrates points out that if you borrowed a weapon from a friend and then he became homicidal it would not be just to return it.
II. Write a one paragraph responce to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephalus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I agree more with Cephalus because his definition is more truthful than anything else. Despite the fact that Socrates can find loopholes with anything that anyone says, Cephalus still has a solid opinion. But if it were up to me to define ideal justice, it would be a system that prevents violence from occuring.
3.14.2007
Cave Assignment 3/15
Compare and contrast what Socrates says in “The Simile of the Cave” with Fahrenheit 451. How are characters like Mildred similar to characters in “Simile of the Cave”?
I wanted to do this question before I had even read your blog because the relationship had been brought up to me by my friend who had you last year and by Justin. At first I didn't agree, but then it became clearer and clearer as I read on in the text and kept on finding more and more interesting passages in The Allegory.
The whole metaphor of the cave was actually litterally brought up during Fahrenheit. Montag compared being enlighted to those who were still inside of the cave (people like Mildred, his wife, who were contempt with being inside their own bubble or cave.) But not only was it literally referenced to, but the whole book was a metaphor to the cave metaphor. The people who were stuck inside a cave, unable to move their bodies or heads were the majority of citizens who believed the anti-book propaganda. By following everything that society tells them they are unable to reflect on their own opinions or question if the bunny rabbit is really a bunny rabbit. These thoughts are not only blocked out from their conscience, but thought to be rediculous and an offence against society that could get you arrested.
Basically to sum up the relationship between the two metaphors. The people making the hand puppets could be society as a whole or the government (but I don't want to make that connection because we never learned much about Fahrenheit's government) and the individuals are sitting just staring at the shadows believing that the dancing lack of light is a bunny rabbit because the ones in the cave percieve reality to be whatever is right in front of them rather than questioning it.
I wanted to do this question before I had even read your blog because the relationship had been brought up to me by my friend who had you last year and by Justin. At first I didn't agree, but then it became clearer and clearer as I read on in the text and kept on finding more and more interesting passages in The Allegory.
The whole metaphor of the cave was actually litterally brought up during Fahrenheit. Montag compared being enlighted to those who were still inside of the cave (people like Mildred, his wife, who were contempt with being inside their own bubble or cave.) But not only was it literally referenced to, but the whole book was a metaphor to the cave metaphor. The people who were stuck inside a cave, unable to move their bodies or heads were the majority of citizens who believed the anti-book propaganda. By following everything that society tells them they are unable to reflect on their own opinions or question if the bunny rabbit is really a bunny rabbit. These thoughts are not only blocked out from their conscience, but thought to be rediculous and an offence against society that could get you arrested.
Basically to sum up the relationship between the two metaphors. The people making the hand puppets could be society as a whole or the government (but I don't want to make that connection because we never learned much about Fahrenheit's government) and the individuals are sitting just staring at the shadows believing that the dancing lack of light is a bunny rabbit because the ones in the cave percieve reality to be whatever is right in front of them rather than questioning it.
3.13.2007
Plato Self-Reflection 3/14
Recall a time that you heard a statement of “fact” that was later found to be untrue. It can be from a parent, a teacher, a friend, a government official, a book, or a film. How did you find out it was untrue and how did it make you feel? Did it change your outlook on anything?
During our library trip to UCSD there was a particullarly unsettling event that took place. I was pleasently minding my own buisness and hard at work studying for our interaction project when suddenly an unnamed person comes running at me telling me what just happend. A nameless girl had decided that she would go all the way to the top floor (8th) and drop a large book down the stairwell. Immediatly rumors starting flying like crazy, some people said that it hit and killed someone, others said that an ambulance had carted some guy out, and some said that it had hit our very own teacher. Of course none of this was fact, instead the book had flown off course and landed around the 3rd level of the building. Unfortunatly nobody knew the facts except for those who were there to witness and those people were in trouble so the rumors continued to flow. Later in the day our teacher (Mr. Jana) confronted everyone at once. He told us that the book had hit someone and they were seriously hurt. Now, this coming from a teacher was much more likely to be believed but instead that turned out to be a blatend lie. This didn't really change my perspective in life but I learned that nobody can be 100% trusted, even respected authority.
During our library trip to UCSD there was a particullarly unsettling event that took place. I was pleasently minding my own buisness and hard at work studying for our interaction project when suddenly an unnamed person comes running at me telling me what just happend. A nameless girl had decided that she would go all the way to the top floor (8th) and drop a large book down the stairwell. Immediatly rumors starting flying like crazy, some people said that it hit and killed someone, others said that an ambulance had carted some guy out, and some said that it had hit our very own teacher. Of course none of this was fact, instead the book had flown off course and landed around the 3rd level of the building. Unfortunatly nobody knew the facts except for those who were there to witness and those people were in trouble so the rumors continued to flow. Later in the day our teacher (Mr. Jana) confronted everyone at once. He told us that the book had hit someone and they were seriously hurt. Now, this coming from a teacher was much more likely to be believed but instead that turned out to be a blatend lie. This didn't really change my perspective in life but I learned that nobody can be 100% trusted, even respected authority.
3.01.2007
Personal Reflection 3/2
Write about a time that your pride had negative consequences (or related to that, your inablity to forgive). You can also write about someone else or write about pride in another book.How was your pride, or the other person's, similiar or different to that of Achilles?
The year was 2002 and i had a new craving, a craving for more poker. Poker was a past-time and I loved playing it. One night while at a nameless friend's house we were intensely into a match, and this particular match had gotten into american currency wagers that were consitantly pilling up into higher and higher stacks. All fun and games were put behind us and a feeling of competitivness that could be cut with a knife was on our shoulders. Finally our hands were shown and as I came to the conclusion that I won I felt like a million bucks.
Now it was time for the next hand to be delt. I was feeling so headstrong and invinsible that I decided to go all in. I could feel the beads of sweat rolling down my fore head as each individual card was laid on the table. Finally the time came for the last card to be revealed....A Queen... I was devestated my hand was completely worthless and I had lost all the money that I had earned. I learned a lesson that night, you should always put your pride behind you and focus on the present.
The year was 2002 and i had a new craving, a craving for more poker. Poker was a past-time and I loved playing it. One night while at a nameless friend's house we were intensely into a match, and this particular match had gotten into american currency wagers that were consitantly pilling up into higher and higher stacks. All fun and games were put behind us and a feeling of competitivness that could be cut with a knife was on our shoulders. Finally our hands were shown and as I came to the conclusion that I won I felt like a million bucks.
Now it was time for the next hand to be delt. I was feeling so headstrong and invinsible that I decided to go all in. I could feel the beads of sweat rolling down my fore head as each individual card was laid on the table. Finally the time came for the last card to be revealed....A Queen... I was devestated my hand was completely worthless and I had lost all the money that I had earned. I learned a lesson that night, you should always put your pride behind you and focus on the present.
Iliad Assignment 3/2
First we skipped the middle section of book nine and then we continued to read on after the battle scene took place. Patrocleus was killed by Apollo, Hector and Euphorbus. Before he dies he predicts that Achilles will kill Hector in vengence. I really do not have any questions at this point.
2.28.2007
Iliad Assignment 3/1
1. What does Patroclus propose to Achilles and what is Achilles’ response? Why does Achilles grant Patroclus’ request?
Patroclus proposed to Achilles that he could wear Achilles' armor into battle to command and fight along side his fellow Greek warriors. Achilles lets him because he knows that there is no other option that could be taken for the Greeks (besides him fighting) due to the fact that they are losing so badly.
2. On p. 413 line 35 (approximately), Patroclus tells Achilles that Achilles is “cursed in [his] own courage.” What does Patroclus mean by that and do you agree with him?
I think that he is saying that the problem with Achilles is that his ego is too large for his own good. I do agree because I think that Achilles has taken his little boycott session a bit too far.
3. Either ask questions about the text or write down vocab words from the text with definitions.
Patroclus proposed to Achilles that he could wear Achilles' armor into battle to command and fight along side his fellow Greek warriors. Achilles lets him because he knows that there is no other option that could be taken for the Greeks (besides him fighting) due to the fact that they are losing so badly.
2. On p. 413 line 35 (approximately), Patroclus tells Achilles that Achilles is “cursed in [his] own courage.” What does Patroclus mean by that and do you agree with him?
I think that he is saying that the problem with Achilles is that his ego is too large for his own good. I do agree because I think that Achilles has taken his little boycott session a bit too far.
3. Either ask questions about the text or write down vocab words from the text with definitions.
- Salvos-a simultaneous or successive discharge of artillery, bombs, etc.
- Lithe-Readily bent; supple
- Greaves-Leg armor worn below the knee. Often used in the plural.
Iliad Assignment 2/28
1. Write a question. It can be an interpretive question that you have an opinion on or something about the text that you don't understand. You do not need to write the answer.
My only question about this part is who Phoenix is? I did not understand what his meaning in the text was and where he came from.
2. What was your opinion of Achilles before reading Book 9? Does it change after reading Book 9? Explain why or why not.
Before reading book 9 I had a point of view on Achilles where I would back him no matter what his decisons were, I think this may be because the author made him to fit into a more protagonist role. After reading this section my view on him really doesn't change, he is still the headstrong character that he was in the beginning. The only thing that I would say is different is that now he believes even more for his cause to boycott than he did earlier.
3. At various points in the text some characters attempt to persuade other characters to take a course of action. Make a list of the persuasive strategy used by these characters:
My only question about this part is who Phoenix is? I did not understand what his meaning in the text was and where he came from.
2. What was your opinion of Achilles before reading Book 9? Does it change after reading Book 9? Explain why or why not.
Before reading book 9 I had a point of view on Achilles where I would back him no matter what his decisons were, I think this may be because the author made him to fit into a more protagonist role. After reading this section my view on him really doesn't change, he is still the headstrong character that he was in the beginning. The only thing that I would say is different is that now he believes even more for his cause to boycott than he did earlier.
3. At various points in the text some characters attempt to persuade other characters to take a course of action. Make a list of the persuasive strategy used by these characters:
- Diomedes tries to persuade Agamemnon to stay in the fight for the long run and not give up. I think that this was an appeal to reason because he makes it seem that this was their only feesable option to take.
- Achilles tries to persuade Pheonix to not fight but to rather stay with him and return home with him. I think that this was an appeal to reason because he lists specific factual reasons to do so.
- Pheonix tries to persuade Achilles to stay and fight for his motherland rather than to retreat back home. He is appealing to ethics and emotion, because he tries to influence Achilles to listen to him by listing reasons that have to do with honor and that relate to his fellow men.
2.26.2007
Iliad Assignment 2/27
1 Question- I don’t understand what the difference between Diomedes’ speech and Nestor’s speech was.
2 Opinion of Agamemnon- Before reading this I had a very poor outlook on Agamemnon the king. I saw him as a heartless selfish headstrong man, that didn’t care much about the opinions, whether they be good or bad, of others. This was mainly emphasized during his resistance of giving Cryseis back to the Trojans despite his men’s cries to take the offer and return home. Yet, after reading this section my opinion of him altered a lot. I now see him as a man who can admit defeat but acts in a cowardly manner about it. He also showed us that he is very generous himself when he needs help, in the case of his gifts for Achilles. But above all it is clear to me that Agamemnon isn’t clear at all, he is a complicated man and we will have to read more to find out a more complete definition of him.
3 Persuasive Speeches
-Nestor
-Nestor is telling the king how he thinks he should handle the war
-Appeal to emotion and reason
-Because he butters him up in the beginning by telling him all these good things about him then tells him what’s up
-Odysseus
-Odysseus is trying to persuade Achilles to fight for them again
-Appeal to emotion, ethics and reason
- he appeals to emotion and ethics by telling him of how the men need him to fight so that they wont all die
-Diomedes
-Diomedes is trying to tell Agamemnon what he thinks that he should do in their situation
-Appeal to ethics
-He is appealing to reason because he talks about how Zeus gave him honor when he gave him the scepter and that by retreating he is sacrificing honor of all Greeks
2 Opinion of Agamemnon- Before reading this I had a very poor outlook on Agamemnon the king. I saw him as a heartless selfish headstrong man, that didn’t care much about the opinions, whether they be good or bad, of others. This was mainly emphasized during his resistance of giving Cryseis back to the Trojans despite his men’s cries to take the offer and return home. Yet, after reading this section my opinion of him altered a lot. I now see him as a man who can admit defeat but acts in a cowardly manner about it. He also showed us that he is very generous himself when he needs help, in the case of his gifts for Achilles. But above all it is clear to me that Agamemnon isn’t clear at all, he is a complicated man and we will have to read more to find out a more complete definition of him.
3 Persuasive Speeches
-Nestor
-Nestor is telling the king how he thinks he should handle the war
-Appeal to emotion and reason
-Because he butters him up in the beginning by telling him all these good things about him then tells him what’s up
-Odysseus
-Odysseus is trying to persuade Achilles to fight for them again
-Appeal to emotion, ethics and reason
- he appeals to emotion and ethics by telling him of how the men need him to fight so that they wont all die
-Diomedes
-Diomedes is trying to tell Agamemnon what he thinks that he should do in their situation
-Appeal to ethics
-He is appealing to reason because he talks about how Zeus gave him honor when he gave him the scepter and that by retreating he is sacrificing honor of all Greeks
2.21.2007
2/22 Iliad Reflection
If you were an ancient Greek, which of the following statements would you agree with?
A) Achilles’ rage is justified and I support his decision not to fight, even if it means the Greeks might lose lots of men, or even the war itself.
Or
B) Agamemnon is the commander, as such he is in the right, and I support his decision to ask for Achilles’ war prize Briseis – even if it means that Achilles will sit out the war.
If I were a Greek I would not agree with either of these quotes. Agamemnon and Achilles were two very egotistical men that both made very self-centered decisions that eventually compromised their own army’s lives. First of all I do not agree with Agamemnon’s stance because as illustrated in the book, his warriors do not agree with his decision to keep Chrysies instead of receiving the ransom and giving her back (pg 78 lines 25-36). In his position Agamemnon should have listened to the voice of his people but instead he made the decision that best fit him and not the health of his own people. On the other hand I also disagree with Achilles because his decision is also hard headed. He should be able to suck up his loses and realize the greater good of his people instead of trying to spite Agamemnon (page 83 lines 198-202). In those lines Achilles is so mad at Agamemnon that he threatens to return home and not help his people win the war, just because of an unimportant fight between the two men.
A) Achilles’ rage is justified and I support his decision not to fight, even if it means the Greeks might lose lots of men, or even the war itself.
Or
B) Agamemnon is the commander, as such he is in the right, and I support his decision to ask for Achilles’ war prize Briseis – even if it means that Achilles will sit out the war.
If I were a Greek I would not agree with either of these quotes. Agamemnon and Achilles were two very egotistical men that both made very self-centered decisions that eventually compromised their own army’s lives. First of all I do not agree with Agamemnon’s stance because as illustrated in the book, his warriors do not agree with his decision to keep Chrysies instead of receiving the ransom and giving her back (pg 78 lines 25-36). In his position Agamemnon should have listened to the voice of his people but instead he made the decision that best fit him and not the health of his own people. On the other hand I also disagree with Achilles because his decision is also hard headed. He should be able to suck up his loses and realize the greater good of his people instead of trying to spite Agamemnon (page 83 lines 198-202). In those lines Achilles is so mad at Agamemnon that he threatens to return home and not help his people win the war, just because of an unimportant fight between the two men.
2/22 Dissagreement assignment
In your blog write about a time when you had a big disagreement with a friend - or other person - that led you or the other person to regret things that were said or done. Focus on the negative consequences of the disagreement and decisions that you or the other person made that might have made things needlessly worse. You can also write about something similar from literature or the movies, or even about other people that you know. Remember this is a public forum so be careful what you write. You can change names and fictionalize details.
It was a stormy day before last years super bowl in, usually glorious, San Diego. My friend was one that was slightly more sensitive about his favorite things including football team. While knowing this I decided to poke a little fun at his faith in his team. Some of my comments were over the top but wouldn’t have really hurt him so when he became extremely upset and wouldn’t talk to me I became frustrated because I believed that I was in the right. Unfortunately I had no idea of knowing that he had just gone through something traumatic the night before. My friend was not one to share what was running through his mind so he never let me on. I ending up making one final comment that broke the camel’s back and we stopped talking to each other for a long time. Later someone told me about what had happened and I felt horrible. I apologized as quickly as I could and he forgave me but ever since then things haven’t been the same. I wish I could go back in time and change what I said, if I had just stopped for a second to think about the big picture we could still be great friends.
It was a stormy day before last years super bowl in, usually glorious, San Diego. My friend was one that was slightly more sensitive about his favorite things including football team. While knowing this I decided to poke a little fun at his faith in his team. Some of my comments were over the top but wouldn’t have really hurt him so when he became extremely upset and wouldn’t talk to me I became frustrated because I believed that I was in the right. Unfortunately I had no idea of knowing that he had just gone through something traumatic the night before. My friend was not one to share what was running through his mind so he never let me on. I ending up making one final comment that broke the camel’s back and we stopped talking to each other for a long time. Later someone told me about what had happened and I felt horrible. I apologized as quickly as I could and he forgave me but ever since then things haven’t been the same. I wish I could go back in time and change what I said, if I had just stopped for a second to think about the big picture we could still be great friends.
2.13.2007
Illiad Reading - 2/13
Reread what we have read so far from The Iliad. That's lines 1-118 pp. 77-80. Ask any questions you have and any other comments or observations. Post this on your blog.
So far the reading has been difficult enough so that it is hard to understand the first time through but after going back and re-reading it is a lot easier to understand. I really like the contrast between the two fighting sides (the Trojans and the Greeks) and what really helps it is the authors use of extremely complex discriptive writing.
So far the reading has been difficult enough so that it is hard to understand the first time through but after going back and re-reading it is a lot easier to understand. I really like the contrast between the two fighting sides (the Trojans and the Greeks) and what really helps it is the authors use of extremely complex discriptive writing.
2.12.2007
My Rage - Homework
The ending of the day inches to a halt as 3:40 hits the clock. As usual our teacher is late in letting us out. Suddenly I realize that those three numbers are anti-climatic. As my brain wanders to what I'm going to do with my newfound freedom, when suddenly the dictator that we call "teacher" univitingly opens his lips to utter the most dreaded word on a Friday that has ever been counjured up. Homework. The blood drains from my face and I am suddenly thrown from my dream world and into the unpleasent present. As he goes on with the description I feel as if I have been thrown into the belly of the beast and trapped behind bars. I just want to scream as loud as my lungs can manage. I want to yell to the clouds and make the shatter down to glistening pieces. I want the world to know and feel my anger, but I can't, I have to watch my dreams evaporate into the atmosphere and take on my responcibilities.
2.07.2007
2/7 Fahrenheit Descriptive Writing
I chose to write in perspective of Faber right before Montag shows up at his door for the first time.
My feet shuffle briskly backwards and then a swift motion forwards as i frettingly pace in circles around the drearily decorated room. My ears block out the consistantly nagging noise of the clock that never dies, yet in the back of my mind it is only a matter of those ticking seconds before I am discovered. Suddenly a jolt of the heart jerks my eyes towards the source of the doorbell. Paralysis covers my body head to toe like a deer in headlights. Slowly and steadily each body part remembers its role and life drains back into my body. I start moving my feet awkwardly towards the door as I hear the thundering pulse of noise again. I gently caress the knob to the left and peer out the frame as the street lights outside reflect and dance on my otherwise darkend face. I see a man standing in front of me, what is a man doing here? at my house? my thoughts embrase the darkest of possibilites. In the next instant my eyes dart to the 451 patch on his arm and a fury of scalding fright courses through my veins as I realize that this is not an ordinary man, but one of the great fire gods here to strike me forver off the list of book offenders.
My feet shuffle briskly backwards and then a swift motion forwards as i frettingly pace in circles around the drearily decorated room. My ears block out the consistantly nagging noise of the clock that never dies, yet in the back of my mind it is only a matter of those ticking seconds before I am discovered. Suddenly a jolt of the heart jerks my eyes towards the source of the doorbell. Paralysis covers my body head to toe like a deer in headlights. Slowly and steadily each body part remembers its role and life drains back into my body. I start moving my feet awkwardly towards the door as I hear the thundering pulse of noise again. I gently caress the knob to the left and peer out the frame as the street lights outside reflect and dance on my otherwise darkend face. I see a man standing in front of me, what is a man doing here? at my house? my thoughts embrase the darkest of possibilites. In the next instant my eyes dart to the 451 patch on his arm and a fury of scalding fright courses through my veins as I realize that this is not an ordinary man, but one of the great fire gods here to strike me forver off the list of book offenders.
2.06.2007
2/7 Descriptive Writing Assignment
1. Find the scene in the book
I chose to use page 80 where Montag has met Faber for the second time in many years. He comes to the door to talk to Faber but Faber is too scared to let him in or trust him because he thinks he is here to burn his books.
2. Make a list of the descriptive words in that scene – minimum of 3, but you should be able to find a lot
I chose to use page 80 where Montag has met Faber for the second time in many years. He comes to the door to talk to Faber but Faber is too scared to let him in or trust him because he thinks he is here to burn his books.
2. Make a list of the descriptive words in that scene – minimum of 3, but you should be able to find a lot
- Peered - Bradbury uses this word to describe the slow and cautious movements of the old man when he opened the door. It shows him building up what little courage that he has to look brave while on the inside he cowers.
- Fragile - Fragile shows not only the insistant fear within the man but also the age that characteristically comes with it. This man, Faber, is old and fragile. He can be hurt easily so it shows the reader even more of a reason that he is fearful
- Trembling - Now you know for certain that he is scared. Trembling gives me an image of a soft scared person shaking from head to toe and emits a radience of intense fear.
2.05.2007
Descriptive Words
Words: eager-halts-frenzy
I really like the description of frenzy because it reminds me of a crazy or hysterical situation. Whenever the word is used to describe something everything in my mind seems to start racing around and making sudden darting moves. Using the word frenzy to describe a hectic situation makes a big difference in my mind.
Alma- I liked the use of descriptive phrases like the wonderous halls. I think that it shows a kind of radience and beauty.
Lishane- I liked the use of the word roared as in "the barbarians roared" it reminds me of and extremely loud noise emitting from a large crowd of people.
Junior- I like the use of the word thorny when describing the paper. I think it is because even though paper isn't thorny at all, it is the state of mind of frustration and sadness that conveys it well.
I really like the description of frenzy because it reminds me of a crazy or hysterical situation. Whenever the word is used to describe something everything in my mind seems to start racing around and making sudden darting moves. Using the word frenzy to describe a hectic situation makes a big difference in my mind.
Alma- I liked the use of descriptive phrases like the wonderous halls. I think that it shows a kind of radience and beauty.
Lishane- I liked the use of the word roared as in "the barbarians roared" it reminds me of and extremely loud noise emitting from a large crowd of people.
Junior- I like the use of the word thorny when describing the paper. I think it is because even though paper isn't thorny at all, it is the state of mind of frustration and sadness that conveys it well.
2/6 Hesiod Writing Assignment
1. What do you think this myth tells about the ancient Greeks? What values did they have? Why would a story like this develop?
People who lived during that time era had many questions about how life worked and what created it (not as if we still don't have these questions) and the lack of any scientific knowledge only made it easier for the mind to wander into outlandish or creative conclusions. These people decided that they wanted an answer to the unanswerable so they made one up. This also tells us about their very radical difference compared to our society's invisible laws today. For example the eating of human was not uncommon and was acted out as a celebration for various different reasons including the belief of gaining powers. Clearly, society's norms and individual thought didn't regard the murder of a fellow human as being repulisive but rather not very important. You are able to tell this by the abrasive killing and off-the-cuff murder that was occuring simply to accomplish a task.
People who lived during that time era had many questions about how life worked and what created it (not as if we still don't have these questions) and the lack of any scientific knowledge only made it easier for the mind to wander into outlandish or creative conclusions. These people decided that they wanted an answer to the unanswerable so they made one up. This also tells us about their very radical difference compared to our society's invisible laws today. For example the eating of human was not uncommon and was acted out as a celebration for various different reasons including the belief of gaining powers. Clearly, society's norms and individual thought didn't regard the murder of a fellow human as being repulisive but rather not very important. You are able to tell this by the abrasive killing and off-the-cuff murder that was occuring simply to accomplish a task.
2.01.2007
Fahrenheit 451. Pg 158-165
Ask a question
I wonder who they were at war with and why?
B. What does Montag mean when he says, “And when they ask us what we are doing , you can say, We’re remembering” ? Why is this quote important? How does it fit into the novel, what is Bradbury trying to say with this?
They say this because basically the whole point of knowing and reading books is to know about the past of humanity and to leaern from mistakes and success. By remembering things these people will become very knowledgable. All books have are ideas and facts to be remembered. That is what is so great and phenominal about them. That is why "they will win in the long run" in the long run they will remember the past and how to improve on it to better the future.
I wonder who they were at war with and why?
B. What does Montag mean when he says, “And when they ask us what we are doing , you can say, We’re remembering” ? Why is this quote important? How does it fit into the novel, what is Bradbury trying to say with this?
They say this because basically the whole point of knowing and reading books is to know about the past of humanity and to leaern from mistakes and success. By remembering things these people will become very knowledgable. All books have are ideas and facts to be remembered. That is what is so great and phenominal about them. That is why "they will win in the long run" in the long run they will remember the past and how to improve on it to better the future.
1.29.2007
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 138-154
1. Write one or more questions that you have. Don't just say "I don't get it." Ask a specific question about what is happening in the story.
I have absolutly no questions. The book has been very crisp and straight forwards for me
2. How has Montag changed from the beginning of the novel to this part? In writing about this you might want to notice that the environment has changed from the city to nature. Is this a coincidence or is the author trying to say something by contrasting the city to nature in relation to the ways Montag has changed.
Reflecting back it is really interesting to think about how much Montag has changed since the start. In the beginning of the book Montag was just another ordinary brainless fool in a society that eliminates un-ordinary people. This all changed when he first met Clairesse that in a way "showed him the way" the way out of the cave that his society had thrown him in and shut the enterence, this was a cave that next to nobody ever climbed out of to simply ask the question "why?". Once Montag started asking questions he realized that his world was just a bunch of meaningless lies that were set in place to keep the majority (and minority) happy and ignorant. Montag's curiostiy grew when he discovered that some people were willing to die for books, he realized that these books must be the key to the front way out of the cave. Montag starts to become more and more daring and less law-abiding. When Captain Beatty finds out about his unhealthy reading habit he intends to put an end to it after Mildred phones in a report. This is when Montag realizes that books were in fact worth dying for. He put his life on the line when he made the decision to kill Beatty.
A very interesting change during this period was Montag's sudden care for others and their well-being rather than his own safety. "'Wait. There's no use you being discovered. When I leave, burn the spread of this bed that I touched...'" Montag realized that he was the one that got in this mess and was able to stand up to the consiquence. This was a dramatic change from the beginnning of the book where Montag wouldn't have gave a damn about what happend to Faber after he was safely gone.
I do not think that the city vs. nature connection was made as a coincidence. The city background reveals a more human controlled area of his life in which he was built on a foundation that society had laid out for him. In nature Montag is able to make his own decisions and fully function as a human being without the mind-numbing technological advancements that were put in place to kill the brain and throw constant happiness at it in which thinking is not required.
I have absolutly no questions. The book has been very crisp and straight forwards for me
2. How has Montag changed from the beginning of the novel to this part? In writing about this you might want to notice that the environment has changed from the city to nature. Is this a coincidence or is the author trying to say something by contrasting the city to nature in relation to the ways Montag has changed.
Reflecting back it is really interesting to think about how much Montag has changed since the start. In the beginning of the book Montag was just another ordinary brainless fool in a society that eliminates un-ordinary people. This all changed when he first met Clairesse that in a way "showed him the way" the way out of the cave that his society had thrown him in and shut the enterence, this was a cave that next to nobody ever climbed out of to simply ask the question "why?". Once Montag started asking questions he realized that his world was just a bunch of meaningless lies that were set in place to keep the majority (and minority) happy and ignorant. Montag's curiostiy grew when he discovered that some people were willing to die for books, he realized that these books must be the key to the front way out of the cave. Montag starts to become more and more daring and less law-abiding. When Captain Beatty finds out about his unhealthy reading habit he intends to put an end to it after Mildred phones in a report. This is when Montag realizes that books were in fact worth dying for. He put his life on the line when he made the decision to kill Beatty.
A very interesting change during this period was Montag's sudden care for others and their well-being rather than his own safety. "'Wait. There's no use you being discovered. When I leave, burn the spread of this bed that I touched...'" Montag realized that he was the one that got in this mess and was able to stand up to the consiquence. This was a dramatic change from the beginnning of the book where Montag wouldn't have gave a damn about what happend to Faber after he was safely gone.
I do not think that the city vs. nature connection was made as a coincidence. The city background reveals a more human controlled area of his life in which he was built on a foundation that society had laid out for him. In nature Montag is able to make his own decisions and fully function as a human being without the mind-numbing technological advancements that were put in place to kill the brain and throw constant happiness at it in which thinking is not required.
1.28.2007
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 126-137
Explain what you find interesting or exciting in this part of the book.
The really interesting part to me was the page that described what Montag thought was the police chasing him down the street but what ended up to be a couple of kids in a car going about 130 MPH trying to run him over just for kicks. This part really showed how brutal the society that they live in is. The only reason that these people who had never met him before decided not to end his life right then and there, is that he had fallen over and if they had ran him over they themselves would have flipped over and could have been hurt. Not once in their minds did their conscience tell them that they were killing an innocent (as far as they knew) man who had never done harm or disrespected them personally once. The only thing they thought about as they played God was how many laughs they would get out of his brain being spread out across the pavement.
"they had seen a man, a very extraordinary sight, a man strolling, a rarity, and simply said, 'Let's get him,'"
The really interesting part to me was the page that described what Montag thought was the police chasing him down the street but what ended up to be a couple of kids in a car going about 130 MPH trying to run him over just for kicks. This part really showed how brutal the society that they live in is. The only reason that these people who had never met him before decided not to end his life right then and there, is that he had fallen over and if they had ran him over they themselves would have flipped over and could have been hurt. Not once in their minds did their conscience tell them that they were killing an innocent (as far as they knew) man who had never done harm or disrespected them personally once. The only thing they thought about as they played God was how many laughs they would get out of his brain being spread out across the pavement.
"they had seen a man, a very extraordinary sight, a man strolling, a rarity, and simply said, 'Let's get him,'"
1.25.2007
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 110-125
1. Summarize what happens in one or two sentences.
Montag learned that his wife and her friends had called in the report and he was forced to burn down his house. Afterwards he turned the flame thrower on Captain Beatty and is currently on the run from the police and his heading towards Faber's house.
2. On your blog, copy down one sentence from this reading selection that strikes you as particularly descriptive. Which of the 5 senses does it appeal to? What verbs, adjectives, or figurative language are used and why are they effective in describing a certain action, person, or thing?
"Montag caught it with a bloom of fire, a single wondrous blossom that curled in petals of yellow and blue and orange about the metal dog."
I especially liked this entry in particular because it compares the lethal fire to a beautiful flower. I think that it is a good example of figurative language because it paints a serene scene in your mind that makes you think of the awesome power of the fire and yet reminds you that at the same time it is a beautiful thing.
1.24.2007
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 91-109
Give a very short (1-3 sentence) summary of the two main scenes in this section. The first scence was at home in the living room and the second scene was in the fire house with Beatty.
The First scene include Montag, his wife, and her two other "girlfriends" they were all sitting around the parlor watching another one of their mindless tv shows when Montag walks in and turns it off. This recieves a negative reaction from the women. He starts talking to them about politics and the approaching war, the women respond with mindless answers that clearly punctuate society's stance.
The Second Scene involved Montag's return to the firehouse, and the return of one book, where he was invited to play a game of poker with the other guys and Beatty. As they are playing Beatty starts talking about books and a "dream" that he had about him and Guy and tries to make him nervous by reciting a bunch of random quotes from books. Later they drive to put out a fire and Guy realizes that it's his house that they have driven up to.
1) Find a sentence or two that has strong adjectives and/or verbs. Quote the book and explain why these are strong descriptive words and why they are effective. How do they appeal to the senses? What mental images do they invoke?
"Captain Beatty, his poker cards in one pink hand, walked with exaggerated slowness to the phone and ripped out the address when the report was finished. He glanced perfunctorily at it and shoved it in his pocket."
I enjoyed this quote because it kind of makes me picture Beatty walking with attitude, almost as if strutting. It makes me think that he knows what address he is going to pull out before his hand even reaches in the printer. "exaggerated slowness" almost conveyed suspence but more so orchestrated the fact that Beatty knew all eyes were on him and he controlled the room. "glanced perfunctorily" means that he looked at it quickly then he shoved it into his pocket, more suspence because you want to know what the dramatic conclusion of the address will be.
The First scene include Montag, his wife, and her two other "girlfriends" they were all sitting around the parlor watching another one of their mindless tv shows when Montag walks in and turns it off. This recieves a negative reaction from the women. He starts talking to them about politics and the approaching war, the women respond with mindless answers that clearly punctuate society's stance.
The Second Scene involved Montag's return to the firehouse, and the return of one book, where he was invited to play a game of poker with the other guys and Beatty. As they are playing Beatty starts talking about books and a "dream" that he had about him and Guy and tries to make him nervous by reciting a bunch of random quotes from books. Later they drive to put out a fire and Guy realizes that it's his house that they have driven up to.
1) Find a sentence or two that has strong adjectives and/or verbs. Quote the book and explain why these are strong descriptive words and why they are effective. How do they appeal to the senses? What mental images do they invoke?
"Captain Beatty, his poker cards in one pink hand, walked with exaggerated slowness to the phone and ripped out the address when the report was finished. He glanced perfunctorily at it and shoved it in his pocket."
I enjoyed this quote because it kind of makes me picture Beatty walking with attitude, almost as if strutting. It makes me think that he knows what address he is going to pull out before his hand even reaches in the printer. "exaggerated slowness" almost conveyed suspence but more so orchestrated the fact that Beatty knew all eyes were on him and he controlled the room. "glanced perfunctorily" means that he looked at it quickly then he shoved it into his pocket, more suspence because you want to know what the dramatic conclusion of the address will be.
1.23.2007
Reply Here!
Yes I know that I essentially "stole" this idea from Laura Mitchell's blog but I thought that it would be a good idea. So if you want to reply to a comment that I left you, here would be the place to do it.
Descriptive Paragraph - Something I Look Forward To
Fatigue carries over my body and slows life to the speed of a snail. I watch as the hand moves slower and slower as it eventually halts completely and seems to start ticking backwards. My body slumps in my chair and I feel like a rat stuck in a cage. The teachers words seem to meld together and turn into a foriegn language. As I sit there and I imagine my own personal fortress that I steal away in after the hands touch 3 and 40. But not yet, because today the clock wants to torture me, to steal away my eager body, eager to get up and run home. Tick............tick...............my nails clinch in wait…………..tick..................tick.............the clock taunts me tick…tick…until finally the inevitable gives in to my will and the cages are released. A wild frenzy ensues as a stampede of high schoolers are set free.
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 81-90
There isn't many fundamental things that I don't understand so far, but I do have one question. Why does Montag suddenly start ripping apart the bible. In this part I was a little lost so it may have been out of context. Does anyone have an answer?
Q. Faber jokingly proposes a plan of action and then starts to discuss it seriously with Montag. What is the plan of action? More importantly, why does he say it won’t work? Analyze his answer. Why won't it work?
A. Montag's proposed plan was to plant books in different firemen's houses, call in the alarm, and watch them burn to the ground so as to arise suspicion of treason against the great firemen. Faber really likes this plan but then realizes that challenges that go with it. For example, planting the books and finding somebody trustworthy to tell and plot with. They need more men to set the fires with and it will only work if the people they trust don't rat them out to the firemen first. I agree with his worries because it will be very hard for somebody in this society that will be trustworthy enough to make such a brave act.
Q. Faber jokingly proposes a plan of action and then starts to discuss it seriously with Montag. What is the plan of action? More importantly, why does he say it won’t work? Analyze his answer. Why won't it work?
A. Montag's proposed plan was to plant books in different firemen's houses, call in the alarm, and watch them burn to the ground so as to arise suspicion of treason against the great firemen. Faber really likes this plan but then realizes that challenges that go with it. For example, planting the books and finding somebody trustworthy to tell and plot with. They need more men to set the fires with and it will only work if the people they trust don't rat them out to the firemen first. I agree with his worries because it will be very hard for somebody in this society that will be trustworthy enough to make such a brave act.
1.22.2007
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 71-80
Q. How will books get us out of "the cave?" What is the cave and how will books get us out of it?
A. I think that when Ray talks about the metaphorical cave, he is talking about a secluded state of mind and presence. As an example, Mildred. Mildred herself and most likely the rest of society is stuck in this cave of meaningless thoughts and actions. The cave restricts outside knowledge or unpleasent thoughts about life.
Books contain ideas and different sides to a topic that can start the human mind racing off in all different directions, eventually engaging the mind to ask even deeper questions like: why? Books of philosophy and opinions can reach into the soul, grab them and give them the boot out of the opening of the cave engaging themselves into toughts and opinions of their own (hopefully there's no dropoff).
A. I think that when Ray talks about the metaphorical cave, he is talking about a secluded state of mind and presence. As an example, Mildred. Mildred herself and most likely the rest of society is stuck in this cave of meaningless thoughts and actions. The cave restricts outside knowledge or unpleasent thoughts about life.
Books contain ideas and different sides to a topic that can start the human mind racing off in all different directions, eventually engaging the mind to ask even deeper questions like: why? Books of philosophy and opinions can reach into the soul, grab them and give them the boot out of the opening of the cave engaging themselves into toughts and opinions of their own (hopefully there's no dropoff).
1.21.2007
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 40-68
Q. Is it better to be ignorant and happy OR is it better to be aware, educated and disturbed at the world?
A. According to Captain Beatty when he was lecturing Montag. The captain believes that the state of mind in which you are ignorant and happy is much better than the latter. Books about philosophy ideology only clutter the mind with contradicting opinions, facts, and thoughts. It is better to know how something works rather than why because knowing why only upsets. Knowing how to do something makes one feel better and wiser. Rather than having multiple sides to a debate it is better to have only one (and even better none!) this is because one cannot feel or be complete with the lingering unanswerable state in which you feel alone. Book burnings started, not as an order from the government, but due to minority demand. Because of the increasing population size, the minority size too increased and soon controversy became an unsettling feeling in everbody's stomach. So rather than censor these books to gain a happy medium, destroying them all together was enforced. This made society an even and therefore happy playing field; with no one person making another feel dumber because of his or her lack of book smarts, and no one to judge themselves against to gain the feeling of unintelligence.
"Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal."
A. According to Captain Beatty when he was lecturing Montag. The captain believes that the state of mind in which you are ignorant and happy is much better than the latter. Books about philosophy ideology only clutter the mind with contradicting opinions, facts, and thoughts. It is better to know how something works rather than why because knowing why only upsets. Knowing how to do something makes one feel better and wiser. Rather than having multiple sides to a debate it is better to have only one (and even better none!) this is because one cannot feel or be complete with the lingering unanswerable state in which you feel alone. Book burnings started, not as an order from the government, but due to minority demand. Because of the increasing population size, the minority size too increased and soon controversy became an unsettling feeling in everbody's stomach. So rather than censor these books to gain a happy medium, destroying them all together was enforced. This made society an even and therefore happy playing field; with no one person making another feel dumber because of his or her lack of book smarts, and no one to judge themselves against to gain the feeling of unintelligence.
"Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal."
1.19.2007
Descriptive Paragraph - Something I Dread
I step outside. The wind chill rushes against my heater warmed face and I shiver. My pace quickens as I try to accelerate the drum beat of my heart. Dew drops stay still like a tiger in wait on the tips of the grass. Outside the world and I wait for the new day. Finally I spot the white monstrosity as it speeds down the hill and comes to a screeching halt right in front of my feet sending small gravel flying through the air. As I thrust open the hatch and begin my journey. Six sets of wondering eyes bore down on me as I enter the impatient, awaiting monster. The hatch closes behind me and I know there is no turning back for another 30 minutes, I am trapped. As I settle in and await what comes next I notice that the universal voice, the one that cannot be ignored is the one of a man named Jeff and another of Jer. Immediatly my heart drops through the floor as I watch home sweet home disapear in overpoweringly stupid commentary on American Idol...
1.18.2007
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 21-40
I wasn't really confused by any parts during this section of the book. The ones that i was midly confused about were gone over during our discussion.
I think that their was alot of truth behind saying the Clairesse was alot more mature than his wife for many reasons. First of all Clairesse notices and pays much more fine detail to her surroundings. She understands that the world is more than black and white and asks questions. These questions are exactly what the government doesn't want. They want people to be mindless and obiediant by believing and applying everything that they're told into what they percieve as the truth. I think that Bradburry makes the contrast between the two because he wants to show one definition of an ordinary citizen who believes what they are told. And one (Clairesse) who looks more deeply into a subject and uses what little resources are left (her uncle) to be an independent thinker.
I think that their was alot of truth behind saying the Clairesse was alot more mature than his wife for many reasons. First of all Clairesse notices and pays much more fine detail to her surroundings. She understands that the world is more than black and white and asks questions. These questions are exactly what the government doesn't want. They want people to be mindless and obiediant by believing and applying everything that they're told into what they percieve as the truth. I think that Bradburry makes the contrast between the two because he wants to show one definition of an ordinary citizen who believes what they are told. And one (Clairesse) who looks more deeply into a subject and uses what little resources are left (her uncle) to be an independent thinker.
Fahrenheit 451 Pg. 3-21
The thing that confused me the most in this section was during the part with Montag watching his wife during the operation. I didn't understand why they were operating on her. Later on towards the end i realized that it had to do with her taking all the sleeping pills, at first I had thought that he had taken them.The reader was able to tell the distance between the two spouces because of the part where he talks about imagining his wife waiting for him in bed which hadn't actually happend in at least two years. But what confused me later is in the morning they talked as if they had just seen each other the other day and had bought the third wall just two months ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
