Inward Man

  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.
 

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. 

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.