Richard Is Just So Suave

In the next chapter, Dawkins finds a way to explain these scientific concepts that most people would find boring and compares them with everyday examples that we can relate with and understand. He begins by saying “muscles are engines which, like the steam engine and the internal combustion engine, use energy stored in chemical fuel to generate mechanical movement.”(47) Dawkins compares our muscles and their function to machine to explain to us how these work. Later on, he compares our genes and animals to computers and how both are “programmed” to the future plans without actually having to anything. Genes are given the instruction and will always control how are body is made, with this I understood that he wanted to prove the point that genes can control behavior. I finished chapter 4 but the last thing he mentioned made me realize that this had to do with the title of the book and how we can be selfish not just because that is who we are but because of our genes. Dawkins then relates DNA to books on a shelf, “it is as though in every room of a gigantic building, there was a book-case containing the architects plans for the entire building.”(22)

As I finished reading this chapter, I found myself skimming through the pages and reading the text with no hesitation. And I wanted to conclude this blog with this idea. Dawkins wrote and executed the entire planning and incorporated the right language so that anyone could pick up the book and read it, what is interesting about the informative novel, is that you don’t really need common knowledge to comprehend the book. Dawkins is like a teacher and we are his pupils, he teaches us through the book, and I never knew I could learn so quickly through a book.

Not So Good

In the 2nd chapter of the Selfish Gene, Dawkins begins to talk about DNA. The different functions, responsibilities, and the main role that DNA plays in our bodies. Dawkins says that, “it is the most successful and productive replicator in the world.” (Chpt. 2) He states that they develop more intricate shells over time to protect themselves and their vital and complex hard work. This is true considering that all DNA molecules have substances and fluids surrounding them and fighting off infections and viruses. Like any other species, DNA had to go through a process of elimination, only the fittest and most prolific DNA were kept within that particular species and the rest diminished in quantity completely. This terminology is now known as Natural Selection. And natural selection will continue to occur as times passes and our bodies will adapt and flourish.

According to Dawkins, "Genes are competing directly with their alleles for survival . . . Any gene that that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in a gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously (true by virtue of logic alone), tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (Dawkins 36). Upon reading this I began to think of the irony in what Dawkins tells us, as children we are taught that God was the maker of heaven and earth and that he is all good and everything he makes is beautiful etc. I guess not, according to Dawkins, of course. As we see here, he tells us that even in our microorganisms we are selfish and violent. And if everything that God made were good than we wouldn’t see this. It also shows that many aspects of our life are life even though they aren’t expected, are corrupted and bloodthirsty.

Altruistic Views

As I read the title of the book, Selfish Gene, the size of the font, and the description of the content, I filled myself with courage to commence reading because I imagined it would be a very monotonous and difficult book to read. Surprisingly, it isn’t up until now. I have actually been enjoying the book and have been reading with much enthusiasm, I find that the book is written very simply, not to say that its simple in context but its language isn’t so complicated and isn’t filled with scientific jargon. The diction seems intended for all audience, making it smoother to read.

In Selfish Gene, Dawkins talks about how we are condemned to being selfish because it is part of our biological system, unfortunately. I have always thought that there had to be some scientific explanation to our acts, why have we always been the way we are? What is the reason behind it? According to the book: our genes. In order to change this, and break the cycle we have to become altruistic, unselfish. In my opinion it’s a mission impossible. Dawkins says, “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” (pg. 3) I’m not so sure if I understand Dawkins in this anecdote, he says that if we, as a society, as a whole cooperate and work together than we should expect little beneficial interference from nature. I would have to disagree in that we will always have to take nature into consideration for all our actions. And like I stated above I feel it is an unreachable goal to try to pertain a peaceful world, because there will always be evil characters in our lives, selfish people.

He says that people fight and kill just to “protect” or “defend” our nation, regardless if we are fighting against our own species, “Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different nation.” (pg.9) This bewilders me. I consider myself incapable of killing another human being, no matter where he’s from or what he’s done, when does it become my right to destroy something that I didn’t build. If this selfishness comes in our genes, is there a way to take it out? With this said, I also feel that at times it is necessary to defend ourselves and we are all entitled to protect our rights when they are taken from us or when we feel threatened, a perfect example: war.

New Ideas?

On Friday we discussed and read more of Walt Whitman’s works. And Mr. Tangen told us to analyze those poems and to identify who Whitman was targeting in his poem, particularly one of America. At first, we got the impression that Whitman was appraising Americans, and he was. But then Mr. Tangen recognized the fact that he was classifying “Americans” in his poems to everyone, because essentially we are a land of immigrants, therefore, we are everyone…according to Whitman. This demeans all Americans because if he is appraising Americans, he is appraising everyone, so his tone and original connotation of his subject is not longer valid.
I found an interesting notion in poem 18 that can easily be related to what we question on Friday about him glorifying Americans. What we didn’t notice was, does he have an opinion on war? And while I read I noticed that poem 18 like I said above is about how Whitman, being an American and idolizing these people, what he thinks of war? Does he talk about it in any of his poems? Yes.

“ Vivas to those who have fail’d!
And to those whose war-vessels sank in the sea!
And to those themselves who sank in the sea!
And to all generals that lost engagements! and all overcome heroes!
And the numberless unknown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known. ”

Here we see a clear statement of war. The odd thing about this is, like we’ve analyzed already he exalted the American people. With this in mind, we would think that he would talk only of the Americans and their past history: all the wars, the battles, skirmishes, their victories, and finally their vital independence. But he doesn’t, he does the complete opposite, “ And the numberless unkown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known.” Here he is equalizing both the unknown soldiers, which can give the implication of the opposing soldiers, and the “greatest soldiers known” which implies the glorious ones. Taking all these things into account, I was puzzled when I read the first line of the stanza Whitman writes, “Vivas to those who have fail’d!” I didn’t know what to think anymore, because not so long ago we had established that he was elevating everyone from the rest, but still if he had this mentality than why would he celebrate the failure of those who failed? Might he have been degrading the Americans self-centered egos once again? After evaluating a couple of pieces of Whitman and seeing an Anti-American trend, could he really be against them?

Chapters 6, 7, and 8

WHAT? I couldn't believe that Pangloss actually died! That was my reaction when I read that our dear educator was hung for his beliefs and opinions. Again we see Voltaire targeting the optimist people, we see here that Pangloss was a very altruist person, very humble man. Here is perfect example of the satire that Voltaire obviously possesses, Voltaire writes, "Candide was flogged in time with the anthem; the Basque and the two men who refused to eat bacon were burnt; and Pangloss was hanged, though that was not the usual practice on those occasions. The same day another earthquake ocurred and caused tremendous havoc." (37) Here we see that after Candide's flogging, after the Basque and those two men incendiary death, and Pangloss hung we see no sign of compassion, no sign of mourn for these people, the sentence follows with a informative fact of what usually doesn't happen and that another earthquake occurred. We see again that Voltaire's satirical side can be almost offending and unforgiveable. We see another example of Voltaire's satire in the Candide's flogging, Candide is flogged for merely agreeing with what Pangloss taught. It is satire because of the level of exaggeration in which Voltaire describes it to us. I'm very anxious to see what happens next in this satirical journey that Candide has embarked on and can't wait to read more of Voltaire ridiculous ideas!

Just Brilliant

Pretty funny thought: most of us probably came home today and were bummed out that Mr. Tangen had left us homework; read Walt Whitman. We probably thought it was going to be some absurd writer who probably didn’t do much in his life, a man that stayed in his basement and just wrote poems. Ridiculous I might suggest, and I choose the word ridiculous not only for its definition but simply because it just sounds right, ridiculous. As I read Walt Whitman on my 2-by-2 desk, sitting in front of my computer, eyes instinctively attached to the screen, immediately after reading the first few words, “I CELEBRATE myself;” (LoG; W.W.) Genius. Who would have ever thought that a poem writer would have the courage to begin his montage of poems in this manner, just brilliant. Or could it be a mock-like gesture? The audacity to appraise himself in that manner. I think that he not only represents “style” on so many different levels, he is the embodiment of what each writer should strive for, originality. He then proceeds in this manner, “And what I assume you shall assume; (LoG;W.W.) I gazed for a while, and began to think that the repetition was radiantly calling for attention and that’s what I focused on when reading, “what I assume you shall assume.” Speechless. It’s almost as if Whitman planned to do this, almost as if he juxtaposed these words so that they left the reader in admiration. Or could it be coincidence? Naaa, it couldn’t be. Or? Maybe, it was Withman’s wittiness that actually got something right. Whichever it may happen to be is unclear to me, I will never figure this out. So I did the obvious, turned my Ipod off, logged out of Facebook, closed my laptop shut, slowly sealed my eyes with my eye lids, and went to sleep.

Chapters 3-5 Of Candide

Voltaire must have written Candide for one reason or another, but this reasoning is ambiguous to me. Like we’ve seen many times throughout the beginning of this book, Voltaire uses satire and humor to give out his message to his viewers. An example where we see Voltaire targeting a group of people is in this conversation in between Candide and the minister, Voltaire writes, “ ‘Do you believe that the Pope is Antichrist, my friend?’ said the minister. ‘I have never heard anyone say so, ‘ replied Candide; ‘but whether he is or he isn’t. I want some food.’ ‘You don’t deserve to eat,’ said the other. ‘Be off with you, you villain, you wretch ! Don’t come near me again or you’ll suffer for it.’ (Voltaire pg. 27) Here we evidently see Voltaire targeting the church. He satirizes about stubbornness that the Church has towards people who are against or aren’t for them.

We are introduced to a peculiar character named James, the Anabaptist. James is an altruistic character and I noticed again, that Voltaire attacks the altruistic, optimistic people in this world. He does this because James tries to save a very “excited sailor who struck him a violent blow”(Voltaire 32)and the sailor lost his balance and almost fell overboard, James being the altruistic hero turns and saves the helpless sailor, when all of a sudden he slips and falls into the sea. The very selfish sailor doesn’t bother helping James who a few seconds earlier had saved his poor life. Voltaire again is targeting the Church, specifically Christian morals, the uselessness of being kind to everyone. He also criticizes the altruist, James, who doesn’t offer any good to society; in turn he is a victim of his own altruism.

Flaubertness

In tonight’s reading of A Simple Soul I realized something very peculiar, we had already discussed it in class but when I got home and began this reading I felt the need to reiterate it. Flaubert, like any other unique writer, has his own style and in this case it is known as, free indirect style. What fascinated me about his writing, was that he could intertwine multiple ideas with only a few commas, one could read a paragraph and not realize it was a sentence because of the efficiency and fluidness that he did so in, I was in complete bewilderment when reading because I now could not distinguish whether Flaubert’s style was grammatically incorrect or a distinguishable attribute that categorizes him as one of the greatest writers. Whichever it may be, I’m sure of one thing, Flaubert could be considered as the fore father of one of the most difficult and diverse styles of writing. And I’m hoping that we get to read more pieces of his writing.

By the way Mr. Tangen, did Flaubert only write in free indirect style?

Smooth Like Flaubert

In tonight’s reading of A Simple Sound I really found a feel for how Flaubert writes and his different approaches to his subjects. In chapters I-III, something I caught onto early on was that he used a lot of dialogue which usually indicates that the reading will be smooth and very straight forward. His sentence structure also impressed me because it takes the reader into a flow. I also noticed that he is very concise in his writing and I actually caught myself in a daze and was almost reading with no effort because he was so clear. I’m convinced that this will be one of the more enjoyable reads we will have in this semester!

The New Beginning

Once the baron banishes Candide from his castle for flirting with his daughter, Lady Cunegonde, Candide goes on and wanders to the nearest town.One thing I noticed and that I came up with was that while Candide lived in the castle he only knew what Pangloss taught him, being expulsed from the castle marks his re-education his new beginning because it is his first encounter with the real world. While there, two men find him half dead of hunger and fatigue and invite him to eat and drink with them. When I first read this I automatically thought of Pangloss' theory of this world being the "best of all possible worlds."Because we would think that if two men saw a poor, and unconsious man on the floor that they would leave him there. This theory of the world being good and honest supports the actions of these two men. The two men sign Candide up for the military where he is abused and suffers hardships as he is introduced into the army life. One thing I found interesting is that this army life in which Candide now found himself in, completely contradicts Pangloss' theory of the world being the best of all possible worlds. Because the army is a place with much cruelty, violence, harassment, discrimination. I feel that Voltaire wanted to point out that even if we have a lifestyle and feel that we know the world, there will always be misconceptions.

A Satirical Voltaire

As I began to read Voltaire's Candide I noticed something that caught my attention and I thought of it to be rather odd. Voltaire is actually satirizing most if not all characters and their personal traits. For example the name of the barony, "Thunder-ten-tronckh" although many people might have not taken it this way, I surely found it to be even mocking. Voltaire's word choice is questionable, one can say these words are childish because of the alliteration in between hyphens. He also undermines the families nobility, the very pride that one feels for their family name, their legacy. We see once again the use of mockery towards the characters when Pangloss, the castle's tutor, teaches a rather strange profession “metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology” we are given another example of Voltaire's childish word choice.

Another interesting demonstration of satire in which we see over and over in Candide is the inevitable display of going against the orthodox lifestyle or beliefs. For example we see early in the book that Voltaire ignores the aristocracy belief in natural superiority at birth when the baron's sister refuses to marry Candide's father because he only possessed 71 quarterings while she had 72. Again Voltaire illustrates the complete ignorance of Voltaire towards what was known as orthodox, in other words, he goes against what most people saw normal and just. In those times woman weren't given the decision to marry whom they wanted, they were told who would be their partner in matrimony.

Five Steps To Being the Best Student

1. Get to class late in order to make a good impression.
2. Put a needle on your teachers chair so he congradulates you for being an outstanding student.
3. Bye yourself absolutely nothing of the materials required for the class.
4. Occasionally skip class and go to the snack shop.
5. Don't study for the test and sit next to a lazy classmate so you can copy from him!

If you follow these few steps, you'll surely be at the top of your class!

Hyprocritical Beings

My first impression of section 26 of the Handbook of Epictetus was that he's pretty much describing and telling us why we as humans are hypocrites in so many different situations in our daily lives. In other words, he illustrates how we as humans react differently when our friend is in the situation agianst when we ourselves are put in that position. He goes about exemplifying it with this instance, "When someone else's little slave boy breaks his cup we are ready to say, 'It's one of those things that just happen.' Certaintly, then, when our own cup is broken you should be just the way you were when the other person's was broken" (26). This example shows us how we act differently when the jokes on us or when the jokes on our friend. And many of us dont even realize when were doing it because we've become so blind to it that we dont even catch ourselves doing it.

If you keep reading the same section another example comes that better illustrates the hypocrocy, "Someone else's child is dead, or his wife...'It's the lot of a human being.' But when one's own dies, immediatly it is, 'Alas! Poor me!" (26) This is a perfect example of someone who is being a hypocrite because when his friends childrena and wife die he says, "Oh it was their destiny to die, dont worry." But when your own family members die its, "Oh my Lord! Why me!"

I think that this is what Epictetus is trying to convey to us readers, that we sometimes judge way too quickly without thinking about what that person is goeing through, “Never criticize a man until you have walked a thousand miles in his moccasins."

Be The Best You

Something that I thought about when I was reading Epictetus was I hate it when people try to be something their not. For example many people like to take the best classes in school because their good students, but those students never really identify what their strenghts or weaknesses might be. In my opinion one should choose the classes that they feel fit. I am in accord with Epictetus when he descbribes it in this manner, " How will you be a nobody everywhere, if you need to be a somebody only in the things are up to you--in which it is open to you to be of the greatest worth?" (24) I completely agree with this statement because its absolutely true, I'd rather be important in one or two things than to be another person in all things. Like the saying goes, "You should rather be the head of the rat then the tail of the lion" because its more important to be accomplished in what you love and have passion for than another piece of something bigger. Another example in which we find Epictetus talking about this is, "If it ever happens that you turn outward to want to please another person,certaintly you have lost your plan of life.Be content therefore in everything to be a philosopher" (23) As we read Epictetus we find out that he is actually a believer in free will to those who have the money and the advantages of having those self-indulgant opportunities.

"Wich do you want more, money or a self-respecting and trustworthy friend?"(24)

I think that this question opened up many new ideas that I had not yet thought of before. The entire manual up until now has been a dialogue between Epectitus to another man, and all along they've talked about luxories and talks about slaves and their wife and children, "Did your child die?" one example, "Did your wife die?" second example, "My land was taken" (11). All of these illustrating the frustrations that any rich white man could have had many years ago.

I Have Given It Back...So It Goes?

As we all know, in Kurt Vonneguts, Slaughterhouse-Five Billy Prilgrim is abducted by Tralfamadores and they teach him that everything happens because it does and there is no need to emotionally attach yourself to those situations. They tell him that whenever someone dies there is no need to mourn because that person is just dead at that particular time in life. We are shown how Billy transform because he says whenever he heres about someones death all he says is "So it goes."

The Handbook of Epictetus also has a way of dealing with unfortunate experiences. Although both of these two didactic pieces of writings have completely different principles and different paths in which each one wants to take the reader, they have a diverse look on the same topic. As I was reading Epictetus I came across a very noteworthy suggestion, "Never say about anything, 'I have lost it,' but instead, 'I have given it back'"(Section 11) Although both of these are not implying the same connotation of when some one dies, because in Slaughterhouse-Five when they say "So it goes" it means that it doesnt effect them much, and in the Handbook of Epicectus when an unfortunate event occurs they are told to say, "I have given it back" which in reality has some meaning to it. If we think about it, "given it back" makes a lot more sense then the Tralfamadore outlook on these happenings because they just shrug and dont appreciate that person, in Epictetus they are noting the death of that person but are saying that gave him back to the person who gave me it in the first place. He then goes on to clarify that we dont need to care about how the "giver" (Section 11) asked for it back. We need to act like it wasn't ours to keep in the first place and that we should use the example of "travelers at an inn" (Section 11) they are staying in that room, but they need to keep in mind that the room isn't theirs and they need to respect the rightful owner.

In my opinion, I agree more with the Handbook of Epictetus because when they say this phrase may seem harsh and depressive they are actually acknowledging the truth behind what really happens when we as Christian die which is we are given back to God.

Always Consult Nature

As I began to read the first few sections of the Handbook of Epictetus I realized that aside from the fact that this is a handbook,to begin with, which means a book of instruction or guidance, as for an occupation; manual. We already know that its contradicting its title because from the very first line its telling us how we need to act to live a tranquil and not so miserable life, "you will not do a single thing unwillingly, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because you will not be harmed at all" (Section 1). I performed a brief close reading on this quotation and the first thing that caught my attention was, that he begins each statement with a “will not” and will not is a very imperative way of addressing someone. Perhaps we could have misinterpreted the whole meaning of the title and and therefore the actual manual itself from the beginning and could have in fact been what it originally was, a handbok if it said may not or might not.

As I was reading Epictetus I stumbled across a rather odd notion. He begins by stating that before you engage in any sort of action be aware of what that action is before you do it. He says most people already have an idea of how they want to participate in this action and are usually disappointed that their goal wasn't accomplished in the manner desired. He uses the example of when we are going to take a bath,have clear in your mind what kind of bath your craving for, some people "splash" and there are some who "jostle" (Section 4). He continues and goes about describing to us how we should approach these situations so that we aren't disheartened if what we had planned isn't fullfilled, "And you will undertake the action more securely if from the start you say of it, 'I want to take a bath and to keep my choices in accord with nature'" (Section 4). I found this philosophy of life quite awkward and some can say dissatisfying because if we from childhood are taught this mentality of having an excuse for your failures well then there isn't much sense for pursuing our goals is there? If you continue reading along a bit further you would then understand my point in the previous sentences, (Section 8). In doing this, I am in complete disagreement with Epicetus because I believe in striving for an outcome, I believe that all of us should want something in life that should seem attainable and we should always be allowed the natural right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Migretticizing Slaughterhouse-Five

A prayer that I found necessary to discuss in one of my blogs because it illustrated the meaning of Billy's weakness and might as well be recognized by all of us before we have a moment of anagnorisis of our past mistakes was:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the thing I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference."(S.F. page 60)

This may or may not have impacted the reader when they read it, but if you were actually paying attention to the reading, then you would know that this prayer signifies the "disease" that Billy witholds.

But if we actually begin to realize Slaughterhouse-Five is sending an allegorical or subminal message to all of us that our destiny is impervious to any sort of alteration that any of us may or may not want to implicate on it. For example if we one day decide to drastically change our future by killing somebody, your actually fullfilling your destiny because thats ultimately what your destiny beheld. In other words, any sort of modification that you might try to instill on your destiny is actually performing and executing that destiny that your trying to avoid. And I implore you to do otherwise and begin realizing that each one of us has his or her destiny planned out.

We may start coming to hasty assumptions that Billy is a senile man because he, as Kurt Vonnegut describes it "could not change were the past, the present, and the future."(S.F. page 60) We need to stop being so hardheaded and realize that we ourselves are "lab rats" in Vonneguts philosophy.

Enclosed In The Past

We are introduced to very "senile" man in chapter two of SlaughterHouse-Five, Billy Pilgrim. Vonnegut describes this man in the most peculiar way, "Billy has gone to sleep in a senile widower and awakened on his wedding day. He has walked through a door in 1955 and come out another one in 1941." My best guess is that, this strategy of describing a protagonist is very interesting because, were used to reading a brief summary of the protagonist life. Vonnegut tries to confuse us, by portraying this very strange man. He then proceeds to express to us the meaning behind the first paragraph. If you read the chapter, then youll know that "Billy is spastic in time, has no control over where he is going next." (page 23) We then are introduced to the idea of Billy have been abducted by extraterrestrial beings, Tralmafadores, and was took to their home land Tralmafadore. He feels priveledged to have had that experience because he said, "the creatures were friendly" and they could see in four demensions. They pitied and saw above the Earthlings because they were ignorant to the fourth dimension.

I found this anecdote quite flabbergasting, "The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die." Its "silly" for people to mourn their peers death. I wanted to comment on this because I found it ironic that Billy actually encouraged this ideal "when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug." (pg. 27) In my opinion, Vonnegut is trying to illustrate how the Tralmafafores try to dehumanize humans by exempting the "right" to mourn a loved one.

I might have found a glimpse of Billy having a moment of agnorisis, when he realizes what being unstuck meant, "He first came unstuck in time in 1944...The Tralmafadores didn't have anything to do with his coming unstuck. They were simply able to give me insights into what was really going on." Evidently, Billy was ambigious to what was really occuring before he met the Tralmafaorians, and they englightened him on what was really happening everytime he was transported from one event to the other.

An Ambigious Mind

In the first chapter of Slaughter House-Five, we are introduced to a war vetern, Billy Pilgrim, from a disaster in Dresden. He begins telling us about his past, although we shortly find out afterwards that he has trouble remembering his memories from his experience. We then see that he had a rather unstable life after his return, we find this evident when he describes to us what he used to do after his wife was asleep. He shows us that he has a "disease" which involves the abuse of alcohol. Pilgrim's "odyssey" bases itself on a man's struggle and rememberance of time not so buoyant.

Kurt Vonnegut's entailing beginning to a novel is ambigious in the way that he leaves his readers in a state of;apprehension towards what might happen throughout his novel. Something I found fascinating about the book is that Vonnegut leaves little or no room for forseeing what might occur in his mind blogging adventure. I'm thrilled to see what occurs when an old war veteran and his freind (Bernard V. O'Hare) are set to relive all their horrific memories in what is Slaugther House-Five.

Terza Rima

As I walk up to my dreaded fate,
My soul is the one of whom hell take,
but never knowing my one and true mate.

Ready as my heart is at stake
I'm sure of when, ill come to my fateful end
and ill surely know who is true and who is fake.