Dulce Et Decorum Est Seminar Reflection
In this seminar one of the questions was is it sweet and right to die for your country? An answer that I found interesting was when Alicia said, it matters what the wars about. I don’t exactly agree with this but it made me think, are there some wars worth dying for? For example in the “Terminator” the main character was fighting a war for freedom and I think that’s a pretty valid reason to fight and die. Also, In World War Two Hitler was trying to take over the world and I think this needed to be stopped. If Hitler would have succeeded there would be a lot of oppression and inequality in the world today. However, Duke brought up what if you’re drafted and you don’t want to die versus enlisting, and I thought that was interesting. I think that War in general is not a good thing and that no one should have to die for their country, even if they want to, but sometimes you have to. Alicia also said if one side is fighting for peace and the other side is fighting for peace, peace will never be achieved. I think it is so wrong to die for your country but Alicia makes a valid point that sometimes you have to fight and die, sometimes it’s for the greater good.
This seminar helped me understand the process of interpreting poetry when we talked about tone. In the seminar I actually realized that in the third stanza it switches from first person to second person, “He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dream you to could pace”. This quote shows how the person changed. Also Mikael mentioned how the poem expressed panic and that was interesting because I hadn’t noticed that before. For example in the second stanza it says, “GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;”. These two lines really show panic. After analyzing the poem more I realized that.
I think it is never sweet and right to die for your country. I think it is honorable and sad, maybe even necessary, but not sweet or right. In the poem Wilfred Owen describes war, “As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.” Just reading those lines made me very, very sad. I think dying in general isn’t sweet or right. It is necessary, but not sweet or right. So dying in war is so far from sweet and right that I think it’s sad that people ever referred to it as sweet and right. Over all war is terrible and it is not sweet or right to die for your country.
Geopolitcus Child Watching the Birth of a New Man Seminar
Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of a New Man Seminar Reflection
The Birth and the Man
Kicking, fighting, straining
Ready to break, to be born
Out of the world, all around me
Power rips through me
Ready to break, to be born
I push my boundaries
Power rips through me
Not quite yet
I push my boundaries
The shell cracks, I stop, no
Not quite yet
I emerge a newborn power
The shell cracks, I stop, no
I was once a child
I emerge a newborn power
And I see my old self
I was once a child
Out of the world, all around me
And I see my old self
Kicking, fighting, straining.
The Person and the Child
I am weak now, I am weary
But I am strong still
I have a child clinging to me
And I am showing him the new
What he sees is a beast
Emerging from the new super power
The egg is always changing
I was once that supper power
But now I am weak, now I am weary
I will let the strong one take over.
For I no longer own the world
“See, my geopoliticus child,” I point at the beast
“This is the birth of a new man.”
The Egg
Soak into my skin
Of man He is kicking me
The blood grabbing me
Don’t let breaking me
No My destroyer
Me is birthing
Destroy America
Don’t North
Please is dripping
Power South America
What is peeling
Power? Africa is crying
Everyone Not me though
Is watching him grow
Omelas Seminar
Omelas Seminar Reflection
Jenna Brooks
Omelas was a really intense reading for me so the seminar was nice; it helped me answer questions I was wondering about. In the seminar Nollie talked about how happiness is accepting reality. This was an interesting comment because I find a lot of truth behind it. If you can’t accept yourself or the truth about your world I don’t think you can be happy. But I could be wrong. The saying ignorance is bliss really applies here. If you don’t know that there’s evil or sadness in the world then how can you be sad? Aiyanna stated that without sadness you can’t have happiness and without happiness you can’t have sadness. I agree with Aiyanna . The suffering child was contrast, without him there could be no happiness. If we don’t accept reality we can’t be happy.
A really good connection I made was connecting Omelas to The Giver. The world in this book is really stable, but it lacks things like color and music. Omelas has color, music and it is a happy society but at the expense of a child in misery. I think the reason people leave Omelas is because they won’t live in a society where their happiness is dependent on a suffering child. In The Giver, the main character, Jonas, leaves his society because he finds out the sad truths about his home. He finds out that children are killed if there inadequate and that old people are killed when they turn a certain age. He couldn’t handle the truth; he couldn’t stand by while children were killed, so he left. The people that leave Omelas are like Jonas they can’t stand by while the child suffers, so they leave.
I think this story is definitely a metaphor for our society. My interpretation is that Omelas is the world, except the world has more people and there’s more than one child in the closet. Countries like America, Canada, and Australia are very privileged countries with a lot of happy people, these countries are Omelas. However, then there are countries like India and Somalia. I’m not saying that people in India and Somalia aren’t happy but there is much more poverty and hunger in those countries than in privileged countries. Poor, third world countries are the child in the closet.
I really relate to Omelas. I am happy; I live in a good town with a good family and good friends, and I haven’t suffered very much at all. I also haven’t seen very much suffering with my own eyes. However, I have read about suffering and watched people suffer on T.V, so I can appreciate what I have. I am extremely grateful. I depend on the suffering of others, we all do. Our society is Omelas. Also at the end of the article it talks about those who walk away going to a place more unimaginable then Omelas. I think that place is a society that doesn’t depend on suffering. I can’t imagine such a place, I don’t
Questions:
1. What do the mops represent?
2. Why is the child scarred of the mops?
Ally and I discussed this question. We came to the conclusion that it is scarred of the mops because they remind it of itself. The mops are dirty and neglected; it doesn’t want to be like those mops. They show it what it is, that’s why they scare it.
3. Why did the author write this?
Being Peace Seminar
Being Peace Seminar Reflection
This seminar was a really interesting seminar for me. One topic that I thought got a lot of responses was, in modern society people don’t want to be in touch with themselves. I think as a class we got kind of caught up on this topic but Elliot brought up a really interesting point. What is the benefit of getting in touch with yourself? This really made me think. Ashley said in response that if we know ourselves we can make ourselves better, but what if you don’t care. Elliot really made me think about why people want to be better, what is the point. I want to be a better person mainly because of my religion. If it weren’t for that, I wonder, what would I be like? I have a good grasp on myself, I am comfortable with whom I am and I try to be better. However, what if I didn’t have Christianity? Honestly, I probably wouldn’t care. I definitely see where Elliot is coming from. His question made me realize that I probably don’t care enough and need to work harder on being better.
In the seminar, another topic I found really interesting was the question, are there ever ideologies or doctrines worth killing or dying for. First, there is never an ideology or doctrine worth killing for. One thing I said in the seminar was killing for peace is like having sex for virginity, pointlss. There is a bible verse that says “Blessed are the peace makers for they shall see God.” Killing in the name of God is practically blasphemy. Thich Nhat Hanh Stated in the article Being Peace, “Peace can only be achieved when we are free from fanaticism.” I believe this is very true. I live with the idea that everything should be done in moderation, even belief. Extreme is never good, you have to find balance in everything you do.
On the other hand, I would die for my belief. I don’t like it when people tell me what to do. I can do with my life what I want and in my point of view this life and body I have isn’t even mine, it’s Gods. Therefore, if I were faced with a situation where I had to live without God or die with him, the choice would be obvious. In the article Being Peace Thich Nhat Hanh also says “Human life is more precious than any ideology or doctrine.” I don’t believe my life is more precious than my belief. I see my life as fleeting so when I die I want it to mean something, even if only to me. Over all I think we should be able to judge what are own lives are worth but never, never judge what another person’s life is worth.
A really strong connection I made in seminar was how I was raised, in response to giving your children a choice in what they believe. My parents raised me up with the bible, which I think is ok. It instills good qualities into children like don’t hit, share and obey your parents. However, when I wanted to figure things out, my parents wouldn’t let me. It was really implicit but I still felt forced, so I rebelled. I got into a lot of trouble, did some very naughty things and hurt the people that loved me. Through all of that I figured myself out more and actually ended up really connecting to Christianity personally. But what if I would have chosen something different, what if I would have chosen to be an Atheist. My parents, mainly mJihad vs. Mcworld Seminar
Deogratias Seminar
“Deogratias” Socratic Seminar Reflection
The most interesting thing in this seminar was when we talked about the Star Wars analogy. This helped me to better understand the seminar and the book because it took an important idea in the book and applied it to something I enjoy and understand… Star Wars. Jonathan made this analogy towards the end of the seminar. It applied propaganda controlling people and those people doing terrible acts to other people. In the analogy it talks about when Anakin is being influenced by Darth Cituis or Emperor Palpatine to kill the defenseless Count Duku. Propaganda is Emperor Palpatine, Anakin is the person being influenced by propaganda/Emperor Palpatine, and Count Duku is the victim. This connects to when we talked about disposition and environment in class. Usually you would just blame Anakin because he is the one committing the direct crime but it’s more realistic to punish Emperor Palpatine as well. Over all this is a really cool analogy and a very interesting part of the seminar.
I think my group’s seminar went really well, there were many interesting ideas. First, Alicia talked about how Deogratias was a dog because he felt like he was controlled and blindly obedient like a dog. This was interesting to me because I had never considered this idea for why Deogratias thought of himself as a dog. Also it was interesting talking about Deogratias’ alcohol problem. Nollie said that for him drinking was an escape and when he didn’t drink he would start to think about his past. Finally, there was some humor in our seminar. I thought it was really funny when Alicia called Julius ignorant and stupid. In my opinion this seminar was interesting and very successful.
Slaughterhouse Five Socratic Seminar Reflection
A comment that I am still thinking about is at the beginning of the seminar when Elliot talks about how Billy has PTSD and how it began when Billy was thrown in a swimming pool as a kid. I had the theory that Billy was imagining the Tralfmadorians but I hadn’t thought about PTSD before. Also when he states that some of it started when he was a young child it makes a lot sense because it seems like he’s always been passive and odd. This comment spurred my thinking in the beginning of the seminar and put an explanation to Billy making everything up. This comment also led me to remembering the parallels of the Tralfmadorians and real life. Finally this is a comment that really stuck with me.
This seminar changed my think a lot. When I first came into the seminar I argued for the belief that our lives are predestined. I don’t actually believe this; I didn’t really have a belief at the beginning, I was mainly just being a devil’s advocate. I didn’t succeed, and came out of seminar with a new belief, I believe in free will. I argued for predestination and ended up being against it. I think humans have total free will in our actions and the things we do now affect where we end up in the future.
One connection I made in this seminar is from this book to the Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect is about a time traveler who tries to go back into the past so that he can change the present. This movie has a totally different perspective of time then Slaughterhouse Five. In Slaughterhouse Five there is no such thing as free will and time is unchangeable. However, in the Butterfly Effect it is the exact opposite, this movie revolves around the theory that the choices we make effect the future. Both these pieces of art show a totally different perspective on time and that was a big theme for me in this seminar.
I think I was strongest in referencing the text and communication in this seminar. This is true because when I was making my point about how the Tralfmadorian experiences Billy has parallel with war time and real events I referenced page 76 and page 91. Also I was strong in communication because I don’t feel like I monopolized but I communicated my ideas well. I think something I could improve on is new ideas. This is so because I didn’t really have any new ideas in this seminar; as far as seminars go this one wasn’t my best. I feel like my thinking did change but not as much as usual. In the future I hope to bring more new ideas to the table
Roots of War Seminar Reflection
When Emma said that the two different articles, “The Roots of War” and “Germany and the Next War”, are about the same thing just with two different perspectives, it really stuck in my head. My reaction to this was agreement because after her comment Elliot said that “The Roots of War” states that war and killing is unnatural, when “Germany and the Next War” states that war is natural and a part of human nature. I agreed with this. However now after thinking about it more I only partly agree with what Emma said. I think what she and Elliot said holds a lot of truth but the two articles are so complex that they only contradict each other in certain aspects. They do have different perspectives on some things but they also agree on somethings. For example both articles state that trying to abolish war is futile. In conclusion, these comments really stuck with me.
This seminar changed my thinking in many ways. First, that militarism can only go so far. Elliot talked about how there's probably a large percentage of people that once they join the war and start fighting it's like a reality check. I didn't realize this before the seminar. Second, When we talked about how a cause for war is war itself Elliot said that weapons and other things that are made in war help cause war. Like the dreadnought, The Germans created seven and so England created thirteen. This opened up a new perspective on how war is a cause for war. In conclusion my thinking changed a lot in this seminar.
This text and this Seminar really reminded me of a psychological study that was done a while back. I mentioned this study in the seminar but didn't really elaborate on it. In this study men and women were individually brought into a room and told there was someone in the next room over hooked up to a device that could shock them. They were told to ask the person in the next room a set of questions and every question answered wrong they would have to shock them. They used a set of switches that you had to flip up to shock the victim. The thing is, every switch had a different amount of voltage so every question answered wrong the voltage got higher and higher until the last switch which was potentially fatal. 1 out of every 3 people flipped the last switch if they wanted to or not. The Nazis were asked why they killed and tortured all the people they did. The main response was because we were ordered too. In conclusion I think that even though killing is unnatural many men and women do it simply because they are told to.
I believe I was the strongest in communication. I think I did good controlling what is said and listening. I worked hard not to monopolize the conversation and I think I did a good job. Also I think when I did talk it was a good contribution to the conversation and helped move things along. Next I invited Florian in once. I think I could do better with outside connections because I didn't really make any outside connections. Over all I think I did fairly well in this seminar.
