In the past Socratic Seminars while we discussed Picture Dorian Gray the class seemed to mostly think that man is genuinely good and that the good inside of him will be revealed depending on how this individual is raised and how he or she is affected by society. I would like to expand on these ideas and discuss them further, perhaps disputing one of them.
To start this topic off, the terms "good" and "evil" must be defined. Good is an action or deed that is right and benefits mankind. It is not the absence of evil. Good is a positive influence, not a neutral one. Evil is the opposite. It is a harmful or detrimental effect on society that does not further mankind. This harmful effect must be intentional however, as some people perform actions that harm others, but these effects are not what was intended. Evil and good must both be intentional in order to fit their categories. Accidental deeds of good and evil do not count as making a good person or an evil person.
This being said, people are born evil. They naturally do what they are not supposed to when they are born. They are selfish and think only of themselves. I have yet to see a child that gives away its toys in generosity and does not cry for attention. Parents (influences) must teach their children that life does not revolve around them. This must be taught to the child, as he or she does not naturally do good. Eventually this child learns to be a good person through school friends, and teachers. Sadly, not everyone is as fortunate as others. Many people are not born into well rounded and encouraging homes with good, loving parents. These people have a more difficult time in life and do not learn that they should do good rather than evil. But, as they grow up they still have the opportunity to see good people in the world (charities, churches, famous people) and learn the differences between good and evil through what they see and their conscious. Just because someone is not born into a supportive home does not mean that they have the excuse to be evil.
Dorian Gray was evil from the start in my opinion. He did not start off good and then become evil after he saw the painting. He could be seen as a child that has not learned what good is yet. In fact, shut himself off from good. The painting reveals his inner evil and the evil in him was brought out. Beauty is one of the good things in the world, but Dorian Gray does not see the good beauty in the painting. Rather, he takes it the wrong way and encourages his evil side and ruins his life. After going down the wrong road, Dorian Gray refuses to repent, despite the advice from Basil (this would have been an act of good).
The world seems to have mixed feeling about this issue. Perhaps this is why children are let off easier than adults when they commit crimes. They have not yet made the descion of whether to follow good or keep to their original evil side. They still have a chance to find the good in the world. An adult (supposedly) has already missed their chance to turn good and thus must be more severely punished. Perhaps the adult has done an action purposely for evil while the child is ignorant of what the action really meant.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Argument Against a Belief of Virginia Woolf
Through her extended essay "A Room of One's Own" Virginia Woolf attempts to prove her belief that "genius needs freedom; it cannot flower if it is encumbered by fear, or rancor, or dependency, and without money freedom is impossible". This statement appears to be true when it is looked at without the proper context. Woolf attempts to use a fictional sister of Shakespeare and the Bronte sisters to prove her belief. But, Woolf is taking many liberties when using these people as characters, and they do not enhance her arguments. Anne Frank and Thoreau prove her wrong through their real life examples.
In her essay "A Room of One's Own" Virginia Woolf uses an imaginary sister of Shakespeare to prove her belief that "genius needs freedom; it cannot flower if it is encumbered by fear ... without money freedom is impossible". She has this imaginary sister, Judith, have the same genius as her brother William. However, Judith is hindered by her father and forced to marry. This provides the "fear" and "rancor" that keep her "freedom" away. These factors keep her out of the business of writing plays and thus keep her genius from being revealed to the world. Woolf later uses examples of real people, the Bronte sisters, and attempts to have them prove her belief. She claims that even though the sisters were great in the eyes of the world, they could have been better had society not hindered them because of their gender. Woolf again imagines a situation where this time, the sisters are in the middle of writing, but a man constantly walks in so they must immediately hide their work, causing them to loose their thought the potential of their work to lower.
These are good examples when looked at lightly, but if you look deeply these examples do not work to prove her statement. Judith is completely imaginary. Yes, if she were real than perhaps Woolf's argument would be valid, but she is not real. Since she is imaginary, Woolf can then bend the story to prove her theory; that genius needs freedom and that without money freedom is impossible. Anybody can create an imaginary character to prove one of their points. What is necessary is to use a real-life example. Woolf attempts to use this later on in chapter four with the Bronte sisters. Her argument is that their limited freedom hindered their genius. This cannot be proven because perhaps they were not hindered and they produced the best work possible. Both this argument and Woolf's could be true, but neither can be proven. Even if they were hindered, I am sure that they still did the best that could and the best that you can do is the maximum capacity that you have.
This statement is disproved by society. Thoreau went and lived out in the wilderness and did not have money. He still showed genius by writing Walden, despite not having any money. Anne Frank also disproves Woolf. Anne Frank was trapped in an apartment with her family while they were trying to hide from the Germans. She had great fear and very little freedom yet she still showed her genius by keeping her diary. Her diary showed the cruelty of the Nazis and the strength of her family. This may not be seen as an intelligence kind of genius, but to me it is a genius of how strong a person can be.
In her essay "A Room of One's Own" Virginia Woolf uses an imaginary sister of Shakespeare to prove her belief that "genius needs freedom; it cannot flower if it is encumbered by fear ... without money freedom is impossible". She has this imaginary sister, Judith, have the same genius as her brother William. However, Judith is hindered by her father and forced to marry. This provides the "fear" and "rancor" that keep her "freedom" away. These factors keep her out of the business of writing plays and thus keep her genius from being revealed to the world. Woolf later uses examples of real people, the Bronte sisters, and attempts to have them prove her belief. She claims that even though the sisters were great in the eyes of the world, they could have been better had society not hindered them because of their gender. Woolf again imagines a situation where this time, the sisters are in the middle of writing, but a man constantly walks in so they must immediately hide their work, causing them to loose their thought the potential of their work to lower.
These are good examples when looked at lightly, but if you look deeply these examples do not work to prove her statement. Judith is completely imaginary. Yes, if she were real than perhaps Woolf's argument would be valid, but she is not real. Since she is imaginary, Woolf can then bend the story to prove her theory; that genius needs freedom and that without money freedom is impossible. Anybody can create an imaginary character to prove one of their points. What is necessary is to use a real-life example. Woolf attempts to use this later on in chapter four with the Bronte sisters. Her argument is that their limited freedom hindered their genius. This cannot be proven because perhaps they were not hindered and they produced the best work possible. Both this argument and Woolf's could be true, but neither can be proven. Even if they were hindered, I am sure that they still did the best that could and the best that you can do is the maximum capacity that you have.
This statement is disproved by society. Thoreau went and lived out in the wilderness and did not have money. He still showed genius by writing Walden, despite not having any money. Anne Frank also disproves Woolf. Anne Frank was trapped in an apartment with her family while they were trying to hide from the Germans. She had great fear and very little freedom yet she still showed her genius by keeping her diary. Her diary showed the cruelty of the Nazis and the strength of her family. This may not be seen as an intelligence kind of genius, but to me it is a genius of how strong a person can be.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Protection and Possession
The Socratic Seminar question number ten for A Thousand Splendid Suns asks what the difference between protection and possession is. The characters in A Thousand Splendid Suns perform both of these actions. Rasheed and Jalil perform acts of possession while Babi and Tariq perform acts of protection.
The difference between these two actions is what their motives are. Possessive protection is a selfish act. A person possesses something or someone for their own pleasure. They may appear to be performing protection, but in reality that person is looking out for their own interests. If their possession is harmed or destroyed, they cannot have it any more or get pleasure from it anymore. The person has a possession for their own personal interests. For example, a person owns a car and protects it. But why do they do that? They do it because it cost a lot of money, it is hard to replace, and/or it makes them have a better social status. All of these reasons for protection are for the person's best interest, not the car's.
Protection is done under possession, but it can have entirely different motives. If the protection is done because of possession, it is selfish. But if the protection is done because of an act of love, that is a different story. Selfless protection is done for the object, not the subject. Instead of protecting for their own interests, a person protects for the object's interests. This is different from possessive protection.
Rasheed is possessive over his wives Laila and Mariam. He says that he will shoot anyone from the street who tries to harm them, but the reason he would do it is not for their safety, but because he will loose a potential child and not look as good in his community. This is a selfish motive. Tariq is the opposite. He wants wants what is best for Laila for her own sake, not his own. When some of the neighborhood boys pick on her, he beats them up to defend her and get them to stop. After Laila is married and he is visiting her, he asks her if he should leave forever so that Rasheed wouldn't harm her (I finished the book). He asks her this to protect her. If he was possessive, he would not have asked her this because naturally he wanted to stay with her. But he selflessly offers to leave her if that would keep her safe. That is a great act of selfless protection.
Our society still gets these two words mixed up. I am sure that husbands today still think that they are protecting their wives and children but they are only doing it for their own interests, which are keeping their possessions safe. But there are good husbands too who would sacrifice everything for their loved ones for their sakes, not his own. The same goes for anyone, women and children alike. I am just referencing husbands because of how they are seen as the leader of the home and the guardian.
The difference between these two actions is what their motives are. Possessive protection is a selfish act. A person possesses something or someone for their own pleasure. They may appear to be performing protection, but in reality that person is looking out for their own interests. If their possession is harmed or destroyed, they cannot have it any more or get pleasure from it anymore. The person has a possession for their own personal interests. For example, a person owns a car and protects it. But why do they do that? They do it because it cost a lot of money, it is hard to replace, and/or it makes them have a better social status. All of these reasons for protection are for the person's best interest, not the car's.
Protection is done under possession, but it can have entirely different motives. If the protection is done because of possession, it is selfish. But if the protection is done because of an act of love, that is a different story. Selfless protection is done for the object, not the subject. Instead of protecting for their own interests, a person protects for the object's interests. This is different from possessive protection.
Rasheed is possessive over his wives Laila and Mariam. He says that he will shoot anyone from the street who tries to harm them, but the reason he would do it is not for their safety, but because he will loose a potential child and not look as good in his community. This is a selfish motive. Tariq is the opposite. He wants wants what is best for Laila for her own sake, not his own. When some of the neighborhood boys pick on her, he beats them up to defend her and get them to stop. After Laila is married and he is visiting her, he asks her if he should leave forever so that Rasheed wouldn't harm her (I finished the book). He asks her this to protect her. If he was possessive, he would not have asked her this because naturally he wanted to stay with her. But he selflessly offers to leave her if that would keep her safe. That is a great act of selfless protection.
Our society still gets these two words mixed up. I am sure that husbands today still think that they are protecting their wives and children but they are only doing it for their own interests, which are keeping their possessions safe. But there are good husbands too who would sacrifice everything for their loved ones for their sakes, not his own. The same goes for anyone, women and children alike. I am just referencing husbands because of how they are seen as the leader of the home and the guardian.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Cultural Relativism
The theory of Cultural Relativism raises issues that I do and do not agree with. The author of the article describes this theory by stating that depending on the culture that you are from, your morals and actions will be different from the next culture. This creates the belief that there really is no right or wrong, it just depends on the culture that you are in.
For the examples, the author describes the Eskimo groups killing their children that they have because they cannot care for them. The author also describes the Callatians who would eat their deceased relatives. Our culture views these actions as wrong, but through the Cultural Relativism theory, these actions are neither wrong or right.
I completely disagree with the statement that the killing of children is not wrong. The Eskimos may believe it as morally fine to murder an unwanted child. Most people have a conscience, and there is no way that every single Eskimo does not have one. The reason that we have a conscience is to keep us from doing evil things like that, whether society says it is okay or not. Just because others say the action is moral, that does not make it okay. The author makes the argument that the Eskimos can be justified because they cannot sustain all of the children that they have. It is very selfish of them to go and have intercourse with each other so often and then not take responsibility for the results. If they cannot take care of many children, maybe they should limit the amount of intercourse they have with each other. The author also makes the argument that if the Eskimos did not kill the girls so often, then the female population would outweigh the male population. There is no way that the Eskimos know that. That is a scientist searching for an excuse for their actions. The author concludes his defense of the Eskimos by saying that “The Eskimos’ values are not all that different from our values. It is only that life forces upon them choices that we do not have to make.” This is one of the most short-sighted statements I have ever read. Saying that the Eskimos’ values are not all that different from ours is completely wrong. We value life. They do not value life. Those are opposite statements, not synonyms. He also says that they are forced with choices that we do not have to make. Again, he says an unintelligent statement. They are not forced to kill their children. They do not have to have so many kids. Most Americans cannot have as many kids as they would like either. So instead of killing unwanted children, they do their best not to have children in the first place.
The Callatians eating their dead ancestors is more understandable. They are not murdering anybody and are not violating their conciences, probably because they are not really doing an evil action. Like the author says, maybe they believe that their ancestors spirit will reside with them.
The problem with this theory is that there is no law or right or wrong. Taking this theory to its logical conclusion, the following example will be true: If a person goes and blows up a school and a nursing home, they are fine because after all, isn’t the world overpopulated? Maybe that person’s culture believes in that so don’t make any laws against murder, or they might get offended. Yes, every culture is different, but that does not mean stand by when other people are getting harmed. When the tradition is not harmful, such as the eating of the deceased relatives, it is okay. But if Hitler was ignored because he was just doing what he believed was right when he and the Nazis were killing people in the concentration camps and taking over Europe, were would we be now? Murder is not excusable, no matter who is doing it.
The author concludes with two statements. His first statement is that this theory warns us about assuming that we are always right. I agree with this, we should try to understand other cultures and learn from them and not be prejudiced against them. But there is nothing to understand about murder. The second statement is to keep an open mind. Again, this is a good point. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean that you should close them out. Always be open to new ideas.
This theory fits well with Things Fall Apart. In this novel, the Christians do not try to understand the differences of the African tribes. Instead of learning why they do certain things, they push their beliefs on the Africans instead of letting the Africans push their beliefs on them. The first missionary Mr. Brown would follow this theory by sitting and talking to the village leader. Mr. Smith did the opposite and forced his ideas on the Africans, without any sympathy that this culture is all that the Umofian people knew. If the Christians had attempted to understand the African people, perhaps the Africans would have been more receptive to the missionaries.
For the examples, the author describes the Eskimo groups killing their children that they have because they cannot care for them. The author also describes the Callatians who would eat their deceased relatives. Our culture views these actions as wrong, but through the Cultural Relativism theory, these actions are neither wrong or right.
I completely disagree with the statement that the killing of children is not wrong. The Eskimos may believe it as morally fine to murder an unwanted child. Most people have a conscience, and there is no way that every single Eskimo does not have one. The reason that we have a conscience is to keep us from doing evil things like that, whether society says it is okay or not. Just because others say the action is moral, that does not make it okay. The author makes the argument that the Eskimos can be justified because they cannot sustain all of the children that they have. It is very selfish of them to go and have intercourse with each other so often and then not take responsibility for the results. If they cannot take care of many children, maybe they should limit the amount of intercourse they have with each other. The author also makes the argument that if the Eskimos did not kill the girls so often, then the female population would outweigh the male population. There is no way that the Eskimos know that. That is a scientist searching for an excuse for their actions. The author concludes his defense of the Eskimos by saying that “The Eskimos’ values are not all that different from our values. It is only that life forces upon them choices that we do not have to make.” This is one of the most short-sighted statements I have ever read. Saying that the Eskimos’ values are not all that different from ours is completely wrong. We value life. They do not value life. Those are opposite statements, not synonyms. He also says that they are forced with choices that we do not have to make. Again, he says an unintelligent statement. They are not forced to kill their children. They do not have to have so many kids. Most Americans cannot have as many kids as they would like either. So instead of killing unwanted children, they do their best not to have children in the first place.
The Callatians eating their dead ancestors is more understandable. They are not murdering anybody and are not violating their conciences, probably because they are not really doing an evil action. Like the author says, maybe they believe that their ancestors spirit will reside with them.
The problem with this theory is that there is no law or right or wrong. Taking this theory to its logical conclusion, the following example will be true: If a person goes and blows up a school and a nursing home, they are fine because after all, isn’t the world overpopulated? Maybe that person’s culture believes in that so don’t make any laws against murder, or they might get offended. Yes, every culture is different, but that does not mean stand by when other people are getting harmed. When the tradition is not harmful, such as the eating of the deceased relatives, it is okay. But if Hitler was ignored because he was just doing what he believed was right when he and the Nazis were killing people in the concentration camps and taking over Europe, were would we be now? Murder is not excusable, no matter who is doing it.
The author concludes with two statements. His first statement is that this theory warns us about assuming that we are always right. I agree with this, we should try to understand other cultures and learn from them and not be prejudiced against them. But there is nothing to understand about murder. The second statement is to keep an open mind. Again, this is a good point. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean that you should close them out. Always be open to new ideas.
This theory fits well with Things Fall Apart. In this novel, the Christians do not try to understand the differences of the African tribes. Instead of learning why they do certain things, they push their beliefs on the Africans instead of letting the Africans push their beliefs on them. The first missionary Mr. Brown would follow this theory by sitting and talking to the village leader. Mr. Smith did the opposite and forced his ideas on the Africans, without any sympathy that this culture is all that the Umofian people knew. If the Christians had attempted to understand the African people, perhaps the Africans would have been more receptive to the missionaries.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Edgar Linton
In Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights one of the characters, Edgar Linton, seems to receive a bad rap. In our class Socratic Seminar, the consensus was that he was not a good character. It seemed as thought the class was of the opinion that he was just there as a foil of Heathcliff. Everyone who spoke said that they could not find a hero in the novel or someone to root for. Edgar Linton is a foil of Heathcliff but this makes his character much better and in my mind raises him to a point of being the person that I was rooting for. However, I would not call him a hero.
In Wuthering Heights Edgar Linton does not start off as a good character. Early in the novel when he and his sister Isabella are young they are seen fighting over a dog. They both are acting like brats and Heathcliff loathes them. However, as the novel progresses Edgar Linton matures into a responsible and caring young man. After marrying Catherine (and before) he loves her very much and would sacrifice anything for her. When Heathcliff makes his visits to Thrushcross Grange to see Catherine, it makes her very stressed and ill. She cannot have both Edgar and Heathcliff. So, Edgar tells her to choose whom she wants the most, even if he is not the choice. Edgar wants for her to be happy over what he wants, which is of course to be with her. After Catherine has her daughter Edgar tries to protect her from harm and also tries to protect Linton from Heathcliff before Heathcliff comes and claims him. Cathy loves her father very much so this shows how much he cares for her. At least Cathy shows her love for Edgar better than Catherine.
In our culture, this often happens to people. The good in people is often overlooked because of other things that are less important, such as the way they look, the way they dress, where they are from or live, or the way they have acted in the past. Many people are not judged (for lack of a better word) by their character, but instead by the things listed previously. People can easily overlook the love that people show for each other and the sacrifices they make for each other. Catherine overlooks the love that Edgar Linton showed her. She marries him for his status and is unfaithful to him by the way that she shows so much love for Heathcliff. Edgar is just a toy to her.
Edgar Linton is a good person does not receive the treatment that he deserves. Edgar shows so much sacrifice and love to Catherine that is not seen by her. She selfishly sees Heathcliff over her own husband. However, Edgar is not a hero. A hero must be a role model that can be followed. Edgar is not a role model because he is very weak and he seems too spoiled.
In Wuthering Heights Edgar Linton does not start off as a good character. Early in the novel when he and his sister Isabella are young they are seen fighting over a dog. They both are acting like brats and Heathcliff loathes them. However, as the novel progresses Edgar Linton matures into a responsible and caring young man. After marrying Catherine (and before) he loves her very much and would sacrifice anything for her. When Heathcliff makes his visits to Thrushcross Grange to see Catherine, it makes her very stressed and ill. She cannot have both Edgar and Heathcliff. So, Edgar tells her to choose whom she wants the most, even if he is not the choice. Edgar wants for her to be happy over what he wants, which is of course to be with her. After Catherine has her daughter Edgar tries to protect her from harm and also tries to protect Linton from Heathcliff before Heathcliff comes and claims him. Cathy loves her father very much so this shows how much he cares for her. At least Cathy shows her love for Edgar better than Catherine.
In our culture, this often happens to people. The good in people is often overlooked because of other things that are less important, such as the way they look, the way they dress, where they are from or live, or the way they have acted in the past. Many people are not judged (for lack of a better word) by their character, but instead by the things listed previously. People can easily overlook the love that people show for each other and the sacrifices they make for each other. Catherine overlooks the love that Edgar Linton showed her. She marries him for his status and is unfaithful to him by the way that she shows so much love for Heathcliff. Edgar is just a toy to her.
Edgar Linton is a good person does not receive the treatment that he deserves. Edgar shows so much sacrifice and love to Catherine that is not seen by her. She selfishly sees Heathcliff over her own husband. However, Edgar is not a hero. A hero must be a role model that can be followed. Edgar is not a role model because he is very weak and he seems too spoiled.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Charlotte Bronte versus Emily Bronte
Charlotte and Emily Bronte each display women and men in different ways in their novels. In Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre the main character is a strong woman who knows what she wants and is in no way weak or given to "fainting" or other characteristics that women in that time are usually described doing. The main male character, Mr. Rochester, is also different from what most people of his gender are pictured as during this time period. He displays his feelings openly to Jane Eyre and is very emotional. He also does not tend to his sick wife very well which is also unusual. Men in that time were supposed to be gentlemen and to be the stronger of the two genders. In the case of Jane Eyre the male is the weaker vessel and the female is the stronger vessel. Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights is slightly different. The main female character, Catherine Linton, is not a wise person like Jane Eyre. She lets her emotions lead her decisions and she gets sick whenever she gets distressed. She is not nearly as strong as Jane Eyre. The main male character in Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff, is also different from the main male character in Jane Eyre. He is sneaky and very selfish, unlike Mr. Rochester. Heathcliff also does not display his love as well as Mr. Rochester. The only emotion to be seen from Heathcliff is anger.
The personalities of these characters are very clear in the novels. Jane Eyre makes wise decisions over and over again and never lets her emotions decide for her. She refuses Mr. Rochester's proposal because that is what she feels is right since he is still married to another woman. She accepts him after his wife dies, he gets injured in a fire, and he looses all his money and possessions. In other words, she marries him because she loves him, not because the money he has or the way he looks. Catherine is very different. She constantly gets into temper-tantrums and locks herself in her room because she feels that she is wronged. She marries Edward Linton for his money, the way he looks, and because he worships her. She does not seem to love him like Jane Eyre loves Mr. Rochester. I know that Jane Eyre ends with the marriage of Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, but I can picture their marriage being much happier than that of Catherine and Edward. The males in the novels are also different. Mr. Rochester is different form Heathcliff in that he is more emotional and more kind. He openly displays his love for Jane Eyre and cares for her very much. Heathcliff cares only for himself and keeps visiting Catherine even though he knows that his visits are creating more and more strife in between her and her husband. The strife creates a tax on her health and almost kills her. The visits he makes are for his own selfish interests. He marries his wife to get at Edward, not because he loves her. This is another cruel, selfish action.
I believe that both Charlotte Bronte and Emily Bronte accurately describe the ways that males and females are in life. Not all girls are like Catherine and not all boys are like Heathcliff. Most girls are not bratty and short-sighted like Catherine. I also know many men that are like Mr. Rochester who care for their wife and would do anything for her. Sad to say, there are also men like Heathcliff who abuse everybody and use them for their own selfish motives.
I think that it is neat how the two sisters displayed their characters. Maybe each one had a different idea of people and wanted to show what they thought of them. Charlotte Bronte's novel has a happy ending and a sort of boring plot. So far, Emily Bronte's novel has been much more unhappy even though it has a more exciting plot. Maybe Emily Bronte had an unpleasant experience with a man or a girlfriend and Charlotte Bronte had a good experience.
The personalities of these characters are very clear in the novels. Jane Eyre makes wise decisions over and over again and never lets her emotions decide for her. She refuses Mr. Rochester's proposal because that is what she feels is right since he is still married to another woman. She accepts him after his wife dies, he gets injured in a fire, and he looses all his money and possessions. In other words, she marries him because she loves him, not because the money he has or the way he looks. Catherine is very different. She constantly gets into temper-tantrums and locks herself in her room because she feels that she is wronged. She marries Edward Linton for his money, the way he looks, and because he worships her. She does not seem to love him like Jane Eyre loves Mr. Rochester. I know that Jane Eyre ends with the marriage of Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, but I can picture their marriage being much happier than that of Catherine and Edward. The males in the novels are also different. Mr. Rochester is different form Heathcliff in that he is more emotional and more kind. He openly displays his love for Jane Eyre and cares for her very much. Heathcliff cares only for himself and keeps visiting Catherine even though he knows that his visits are creating more and more strife in between her and her husband. The strife creates a tax on her health and almost kills her. The visits he makes are for his own selfish interests. He marries his wife to get at Edward, not because he loves her. This is another cruel, selfish action.
I believe that both Charlotte Bronte and Emily Bronte accurately describe the ways that males and females are in life. Not all girls are like Catherine and not all boys are like Heathcliff. Most girls are not bratty and short-sighted like Catherine. I also know many men that are like Mr. Rochester who care for their wife and would do anything for her. Sad to say, there are also men like Heathcliff who abuse everybody and use them for their own selfish motives.
I think that it is neat how the two sisters displayed their characters. Maybe each one had a different idea of people and wanted to show what they thought of them. Charlotte Bronte's novel has a happy ending and a sort of boring plot. So far, Emily Bronte's novel has been much more unhappy even though it has a more exciting plot. Maybe Emily Bronte had an unpleasant experience with a man or a girlfriend and Charlotte Bronte had a good experience.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Christianity Portrayed by Bryce Courtenay
In the novel The Power of One the author Bryce Courtenay portrays Christians as unintelligent hypocrites. Courtenay seems to have a bias against Christians that he reveals through his novel. Perhaps growing up he knew unpleasant hypocritical Christians.
For example, when Doc meets Peekay's mother to ask if he can teach piano lessons to Peekay, Doc uses the omnipotence of God to explain when he met Peekay. Peekay's mother then gets confused as to whether or not Doc was praising God or blaspheming Him. Also during their meeting, Doc says that the cactus plant has the characteristics that God failed to give to man. This is plainly saying that God makes mistakes and is giving praise to the cactus for something it did not do. After hearing this, Peekay's mom is confused and does not know if Doc had praised or blasphemed God. This shows her unintelligence. Peekay's mom is shown as not being an intelligent Christian in other ways too. When she is with her pastor she constantly looks to him to know what is right or wrong. She cannot figure out what is a sin on her own.
Another example of an unintelligent Christian is when Peekay goes to Sunday school. He asks the teacher if blacks and whites are equal in heaven. The teacher, Mrs. Kostler, does not know the answer so she asks the pastor. The pastor comes up with a stupid answer (using the teacher's Bible, not his own) saying that "In my Father's House are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you." He then says that "many mansions" means that God loves everybody but He recognizes that there are to be racial differences (also establishing him as a racist) in Heaven. This is a huge misinterpretation of Scripture that makes absolutely no sense at all. The Bible clearly states that everybody is equal (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). I know this and I am only 17 years old with no Bible school training. The pastor of a church that went to a Bible school does not. Courtenay is clearly trying to prove a point here.
There is also hypocrisy shown by the Christians in the church. Peekay says that in the confession times they would "soak up every drop of sin" of the person confessing and judge them. However, they commit sins themselves so who are they to judge?
This also rings true in reality. Many people who claim to be a Christian go to church on Sunday and act like they are saved, but from Monday until Saturday they turn their backs on God and act like people who say they could care less about God. However, not all Christians are like that. There are also many Christians that strive to be like Christ and witness to others on how to go to Heaven. The Power of One displays all Christians as being two-faced idiots.
I think that Courtenay is being unfair in his display of Christians. He unjustly lumps all Christians into the same boat as being hypocritical idiots. He also takes Scripture out of context and uses it as a line for his fictional character to use as a stupid, racist comment. The verse used has nothing to do with racial equality. He also has Doc explain how great the cactus plant is and how it has all the characteristics that God "failed" to give man. Doc ignores that the cactus did not create itself (Genesis 1:11-12) and that God does not make mistakes (Mark 10:18, Isiah 6:3).
For example, when Doc meets Peekay's mother to ask if he can teach piano lessons to Peekay, Doc uses the omnipotence of God to explain when he met Peekay. Peekay's mother then gets confused as to whether or not Doc was praising God or blaspheming Him. Also during their meeting, Doc says that the cactus plant has the characteristics that God failed to give to man. This is plainly saying that God makes mistakes and is giving praise to the cactus for something it did not do. After hearing this, Peekay's mom is confused and does not know if Doc had praised or blasphemed God. This shows her unintelligence. Peekay's mom is shown as not being an intelligent Christian in other ways too. When she is with her pastor she constantly looks to him to know what is right or wrong. She cannot figure out what is a sin on her own.
Another example of an unintelligent Christian is when Peekay goes to Sunday school. He asks the teacher if blacks and whites are equal in heaven. The teacher, Mrs. Kostler, does not know the answer so she asks the pastor. The pastor comes up with a stupid answer (using the teacher's Bible, not his own) saying that "In my Father's House are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you." He then says that "many mansions" means that God loves everybody but He recognizes that there are to be racial differences (also establishing him as a racist) in Heaven. This is a huge misinterpretation of Scripture that makes absolutely no sense at all. The Bible clearly states that everybody is equal (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). I know this and I am only 17 years old with no Bible school training. The pastor of a church that went to a Bible school does not. Courtenay is clearly trying to prove a point here.
There is also hypocrisy shown by the Christians in the church. Peekay says that in the confession times they would "soak up every drop of sin" of the person confessing and judge them. However, they commit sins themselves so who are they to judge?
This also rings true in reality. Many people who claim to be a Christian go to church on Sunday and act like they are saved, but from Monday until Saturday they turn their backs on God and act like people who say they could care less about God. However, not all Christians are like that. There are also many Christians that strive to be like Christ and witness to others on how to go to Heaven. The Power of One displays all Christians as being two-faced idiots.
I think that Courtenay is being unfair in his display of Christians. He unjustly lumps all Christians into the same boat as being hypocritical idiots. He also takes Scripture out of context and uses it as a line for his fictional character to use as a stupid, racist comment. The verse used has nothing to do with racial equality. He also has Doc explain how great the cactus plant is and how it has all the characteristics that God "failed" to give man. Doc ignores that the cactus did not create itself (Genesis 1:11-12) and that God does not make mistakes (Mark 10:18, Isiah 6:3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)