Nettie

Nettie is an interesting character. Her character and role in the novel is weaved very cleverly into the story. She is nothing - a mere side note of description - for the majority of the novel. But at the end, we see that the side note was really a major hint. Her role is huge. Her character and her actions practically change the course of the novel. She is the only source of comfort for Lily. Lily hallucinates about her experiences with Nettie as she's dying. It's amazing how Wharton uses characters to manipulate the plot - even seemingly minor characters like Nettie.

Selden

In response to one of Isa's blogs, I was thinking the same thing. When Abby pointed out in class that Selden is the first character we meet....everything changed. I'd completely forgotten about the beginning scene. His NAME is first. "Selden paused in surprise" (1). That's a significant role. We only see Lily because of Selden. As the novel goes on, we get wrapped up in Lily's life of drama, but Selden's role diminishes to a minor role until the ending scenes. However, I realized that Selden was kind of in the back of my head throughout the whole story. Every time something scandalous happened to Lily, I wondered what Selden would think of the situation.

And I think that I've always thought of him as a potential savior for Lily. I wanted him to save her the whole time. And he kind of let me down in the end.

Accident or Suicide?

I'm really torn as to whether or not Lily's death was on purpose or an accident. I really can't believe that Lily accidentally took too much of her sleep medicine. She is much to calculated and methodical to slip up so badly. She does everything with a purpose. Throughout the book, we have identified her as manipulative and cunning. And her conversation with Selden is too ominous for her death to be an accident - "Let us always be friends. Then I shall feel safe, whatever happens" (309).
However, there is a definite change that takes place during the course of the novel. She is extremely depressed. Perhaps her depression overcame her and she wanted to take more than just a "brief bath of oblivion"(322).

International Herald Tribune Article

My mom found this article online the other day. I was a little confused as to whether Lily had purposely killed herself or that she had been careless and that it was an accident. I definitely agree, though, that Lily Bart can't die a messy death.

The House of Mirth: Wharton letter reopens a mystery

By Charles Mcgrath
Published: November 21, 2007


Literary biography is never finished, Hermione Lee, the Goldsmiths'
professor of English at Oxford and author of acclaimed books about
Virginia Woolf and Edith Wharton, said the other day. New information
keeps turning up. In the case of Wharton, what has just turned up is a
letter that casts new light on the vexing question of what exactly
happens at the end of her 1905 novel, "The House of Mirth." Does Lily
Bart, the novel's heroine, kill herself or die of an accidental
overdose?

The text is ambiguous. Lily, honorable but not always smart in her
decisions, has so fallen from her perch in New York society that she
is living in a boarding house, and so broke that she needs to work for
a living. She has quit one job, as secretary to a tasteless social
climber, and has failed miserably at another, sewing for the
fashionable milliner Mme. Regina, and to get through the nights has
become addicted to chloral hydrate.

On the evening of her death, lonely and depressed, a step away from
prostitution, she packs away her few remaining gowns and carefully
settles her accounts, writing a check that will clear her last
remaining debt, and then deliberately takes a larger dose than usual.

"The action of the drug was incalculable," she tells herself, "and the
addition of a few drops to the regular dose would probably do no more
than procure for her the rest she so desperately needed. "

Some critics have argued that the suggestion of mere risk-taking here,
and not intentional overdosing, is simply a euphemism of the kind
frequently employed in Lily's world, where well-bred people never
referred to suicide. In an e-mail message the novelist Roxanna
Robinson, author of the introduction to the new Wharton anthology,
"New York Stories," said, "I think the reader knows on some deep level
that the event was deliberate, that Lily Bart knew she'd exhausted her
possibilities, and knew that going on would mean a life of unbearable
ignobility."

Robinson added, "If she doesn't take action here, if her death occurs
by chance (or if Anna Karenina had fallen under the wheels by
mistake), the tragedy is drained of much of its power."

Others have argued that it is precisely the careless, accidental
nature of Lily's death that is so tragic, because carelessness, a
failure to think things through, is her great flaw, while her great
strength is an ability to bounce back. Had she only lived through the
night, according to this view, she might have married Gilbert Selden,
her soul mate, and reclaimed her place in society.

The newly revealed letter, written by Wharton herself, seems to point
to the suicide theory. It is dated Dec. 26, 1904, or just a month
before "The House of Mirth" began appearing in monthly installments in
Scribner's Magazine, and is addressed to Dr. Francis Kinnicutt, a
well-known society doctor who specialized in the mental ailments of
the well-to-do. At the time of the letter, in fact, he was treating
Wharton's manic-depressive husband, Teddy, who was beginning to behave
in ways — eventually embezzling her money, setting up a mistress in
Boston — that would lead to the dissolution of their marriage.

The letter begins by resorting to the timeless disguise of the
advice-seeker. "A friend of mine has made up her mind to commit
suicide," Wharton writes, "& has asked me to find out ... the most
painless & least unpleasant method of effacing herself."

Only on the second page does Wharton reveal that her "friend" is in
fact a fictional character appearing in the pages of Scribner's,
explaining, "I have heroine to get rid of, and want some points on the
best way of disposing of her." Later she asks: "What soporific, or
nerve-calming drug, would a nervous and worried young lady in the
smart set be likely to take to, & what would be its effects if
deliberately taken with the intent to kill herself? I mean, how would
she feel and look toward the end?"

The letter was found stuck into a first-edition copy of "The House of
Mirth," along with a poem, dated 1906, by someone apparently besotted
with Lily Bart. Stephanie Copeland, the president of the Mount,
Wharton's house in Lenox, Massachusetts, which has been restored and
turned into a museum, has speculated that the poet must have been a
friend of Kinnicutt.

"The poem is pretty awful," she said last month. "My guess is that the
author is one of those people who just didn't want to believe in the
suicide, and that, knowing of his interest, Kinnicutt gave him the
letter, or the first part of it. It breaks off just where Wharton
starts to talk about Teddy's health."

Since the mid-1980s the first edition, letter and poem have belonged
to Amy Beckwith, of Dedham, Massachusetts, who got them from her
husband's uncle and aunt, John and Betty Moses. Dr. John Moses, now
retired, was for many years a physician in Scarsdale, New York, and in
a telephone conversation recently he recalled that the first edition
containing the Wharton letter had been given to him in the late '60s
or early '70s by a grateful patient named Laurence Gomme, head of the
rare book and binding department at Brentano's bookstore.

"To be honest, I didn't care much about old books or about Edith
Wharton, so I just put it on the shelf," he said. "My interests were
more medical and scientific. Now, if the letter had been by Galen,
that would have been something else." He did not object when, learning
that Beckwith was a Wharton fan, his wife made her a present of the
book and its contents.

For years, Beckwith thought the letter might be important, but she put
off doing anything about it until she happened to be listening to the
audio version of Lee's biography of Wharton, published earlier this
year by Alfred A. Knopf. "I got to the part where she says that Lily's
death was 'probably an accident,' and I thought, 'Well, let's not be
so sure about that,'" Beckwith said. "That was what prompted me."

She got in touch with the Mount, where no one seemed terribly
interested, she recalled, until she showed up with the actual letter.
"As soon as Stephanie saw it, she recognized Wharton's handwriting and
letterhead, and she got very excited," Beckwith went on. "She
recognized that the letter filled a gap."

Lee, who was shown the letter by Copeland, said earlier this week:
"One of the things that's so interesting is the reference to
serialization. We think of Wharton as a 20th-century novelist, a
master of form, and here she is writing like Dickens or Thackeray. The
book is about to start coming out, and she hasn't finished it yet. The
other great thing is what the letter suggests about her practical
meticulousness, the way she wants to get things right — her literary
pragmatism, you could say."

She added, "Does the letter prove that all along Lily intended to kill
herself? I think it's quite likely that in December 1904, Wharton was
thinking that Lily was going to commit suicide, and that by the time
she came to the ending, months later, she changed her mind, because of
the way those last pages hold onto so many moral positions at once. I
think that, as she went on, she decided that it would be more
effective if she left the ending ambiguous. It's actually a much
greater book if we don't know for sure."

Another person who has seen the letter is the 90-year-old novelist
Louis Auchincloss, who may have more Whartonian connections than
anyone still alive. His grandmother knew Edith Wharton in Newport,
Rhode Island. His parents were good friends of Freddy and Le Roy King,
New York lawyers who were Wharton's executors and also, in her later
career, when she was living in France, her advisers about contemporary
American diction.

"They were the least American gentlemen I've ever met," Auchincloss
said recently. "That's why in her late novels you get dialogue like
'By Jove, I've had a beastly, fagging sort of day.'"

Auchincloss is himself the author of a Wharton biography, a book so
fond and intimate that it sometimes reads as if he had known her.
"While I was writing it, I sometimes thought I did," he said, and then
declared his position on "The House of Mirth" to be unchanged by the
letter.

Taking down his own first edition, he read the concluding pages aloud
in his Brahmin accent, and said: "I don't see what the fuss is about.
It's perfectly clear what happens. Lily doesn't mean to kill herself
but risks death in a desperate bid for rest. Edith Wharton wrote to
Kinnicutt because she needed to find a drug that wouldn't disfigure
Lily's beautiful body. She didn't want that dreadful Mme Bovary thing,
with the arsenic. I mean, how can you have Lily Bart die a messy
death?"

Mrs. Lloyd

I was looking around online because the description of Lily at the costume party kind of intrigued me. I wanted to know what the painting she was supposed to be imitating. "not to the brush-work of Reynolds' "Mrs. Lloyd" but to the flesh-and-blood loveliness of Lily Bart" (135).

I googled Reynolds and Mrs Lloyd and found this link:

http://www.abcgallery.com/R/reynolds/reynolds143.html

No wonder everyone was so impressed/shocked - the costume seems rather flimsy.

Sarcasm

I definitely think that there is at least a slight element of social commentary in this novel. I can't not view the sarcasm as not sarcasm. Someone mentioned in class a few days ago that there was a lot of sarcasm and ever since then...I see sarcasm everywhere. I find myself laughing over the descriptions of some of the values of the characters and the characters themselves. I find them ridiculous to begin with, but the sarcasm seems to define them and make the ridiculous more concrete.

Is it possible that Edith Wharton is like Selden - even though she is a part of society - she recognized her society's draw-backs and flaws?

I don't have a specific quote for this blog - the sarcasm is kind of throughout. Once you're looking for it - it's hard to miss.

Doomed

Lily seems like such a doomed character. She just seems so hopeless. She is gradually “growing more sensitive to criticism and less confident in her power of disarming it” (132). “She had a fatalistic sense of being drawn from one wrong turning to another without ever perceiving the right road till it was too late to take it” (129). It seems like this novel is not going to end well. Ms. French seems to be setting her main character up for devastating loss or failure. I almost want to stop reading and not get too attached to Lily – she seems doomed.

“Friends”

Lily is an interesting character – she acknowledges that people use each other for different reasons, but she does not realize that she does the exact same thing. She used Gus Trenor for his money and she uses the Dorsets for her social status. “What she required at the moment, of the Dorsets’ friendship was simply its social sanction” (130). It seems to me like she assesses potential “friends” by what they have to offer her. She doesn’t see actual friendship or caring or kindness – she very coldly assesses her peers and sees just what she can extract from being “friends” with them. Sounds like a very lonely life.

Bridge – Scandalous?

I’ve never really thought of bridge as being such a scandal. “Mercy, cousin Julia, don’t look at me as if I were trying to turn you against Lily! Everybody knows she is crazy about bridge” (127). I usually think of bridge as a kind of elderly activity. Apparently not. Lily’s “gambling debts” are attributed to “playing cards for money”, but I was imagining black jack or poker – not bridge. I never knew bridge could become such a problem.

House of Mirth - Marriage

The descriptions of Miss Bart attempting to woo Mr. Percy Gryce are incredible. It's like marriage and the becoming of being married is an extreme sport. The boredom that she endures on the train to the Trenor's party - all in the name of wooing a man who can sustain her expensive lifestyle. I love the way that she talks about other women not having the "skill nor the patience to effect his capture"(26). It's like she's trying to psyche herself up, trying to replenish her confidence. How she is "almost sure she had 'landed' him; a few days' work and she would win her reward" (29). I kind of feel bad for her - working so hard to convince someone with whom she doesn't even have the slightest emotional connection. Sustaining her lifestyle must be very important if she is to go to all measures to secure it.

House of Mirth - Miss Bart

Miss Bart...hmmm. I can't decide if I like her yet. She's a little judgmental - "It isn't a bit hotter in here than in Mrs. VanOsburgh's conservatory - and some of the women are not a bit uglier" (4), "Oh, I know - you mean Gerty Farish. But I said marriageable."

She is definitely a "victim of civilization", some of the things she says are almost unbelievable - "If I could only do over my aunt's drawing-room, I know I should be a better woman."

She seems rather insensitive and unaware of the feelings and connections of others - when she makes fun of Gerty Farish and when she laughs at Mr. Selden for trying to "make love to her".

Maybe it's just the time period. Maybe everyone of her status was like this and accepted it as normal. But to me, I don't think I'd want to hang around her. She sounds rather mean-spirited in a naive sort of way.

Tax System + Marx = .....

This blog is a comment on Isa's blog about the people at the top getting all the benefits, while the workers at the bottom get none. In micro, we're just learning about the tax systems that have been put in place around the world, specifically in the United States.

Apparently, the principle of tax analysis is this : that "the burden of a tax is ultimately borne by individuals or households." The wage-earners and and laborers are the ones who must pay the tax. The burden of taxes that must be paid by a firm or an institution is actually shifted onto the consumers or workers.

I wonder what Marx would say about this. He'd probably fervently argue for the rise of the proletariat, but would that work as well as the system does today? Understandably, the tax system we currently have in place is extremely controversial and does not have the ability to satisfy everyone. But what can we replace this with? What else can work as (reasonably and comparably) well?

Any thoughts, Marx?

More Marx

I'm reading our assignment for tonight and I'm being assaulted by references to Hegel. Who is this person? Apparently he has a system - "Hegelian System" - that has many different categories - "Substance", "Self-conciousness" page 105. I wish I could get some sort of background or introduction before Marx just jumps in. Although, if Hegel was an extremely important character during Marx's time period, perhaps the audience of this work would understand the references.

I do like to read these sorts of excerpts, though. It makes me feel involved and in the moment. I definitely like Marx's style of writing much better than Gandhi's or Neitzsche's. It is much more urgent and passionate. He italicizes his words quite a bit - that definitely adds to the importance of the matter that he's discussing.

Marx

The most prevalent theme that I've been getting out of these readings is Marx's attachment to economics. I'm taking Principles of Micro and it definitely helps. I can understand what Marx is saying - I get the principles he's discussing.

I have also seen a lot of discussion on family values and the family unit. "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation." I can definitely see how he would infer this from the industrial system. I never really thought of any other disadvantages to industrialization besides the obvious environmental percussions. The idea that industrialization destroyed the family unit is definitely plausible. I'd just never thought of it that way.

Education

Throughout Gandhi's work, he discusses education. My question is - how can advances in culture and technology be made with the most minimal educational background? With only an elementary level of education - potential would be completely stunted. This seems to be a common theme - restraining society's potential. I understand that Gandhi wishes to go back to weaving and spinning (see page 80), but what about the rest of the world? Would India just be frozen in the past while countries surrounding it would thrive and flourish with new technologies and ideas and cultures? I don't think that all citizens would accept this life - there would have to be some sort of dissent among various sectors of society.

Caste vs Varna System

I'm not really sure how I feel about these two systems.

I would imagine that it would only hold back the participants and prevent them from reaching anywhere near their potential.

"The varna system is ethical as well as economic. It recognizes the influence of previous lives and of heredity. All are not born with equal powers and similar tendencies...no time would be lost in fruitless experimentation, there would be no soul-killing competition, a spirit of contentment would pervade society and there would be no struggle for existence." page 231

I disagree. I understand the importance of tradition and honoring the lives of our ancestors...but not to the extent that one is inhibited by them. Perhaps not all are "born with equal powers" but just accepting the role that your parents and grandparents have accepted seems a little defeatist to me. True, no time would be "lost" on "fruitless" experimentation, but isn't that what life is all about: understanding your potential and acting on it? Granted, society would be very orderly and organized, but filled with rather unhappy citizens.

Gandhi 1

As I begin reading our first assignment in Gandhi, I have to say that perhaps a little background on the situation that is being discussed would be helpful. I have never really researched or discussed any of Gandhi's work before and I'm a little lost as to why he's writing this work. Example - at first I wasn't quite sure what "Home Rule" was...However, this was clarified with "All our countrymen appear to be pining for National Independence." pg 5

Another question - who is the "reader"? I assume that Gandhi is the "editor", but the reader, at least so far, has not been identified. Is it Gandhi asking himself questions that will open for his prepared answers? Or is it someone entirely different actually asking these questions as an interview?

Stream of Consciousness

I've begun to notice that Nietzsche writes sometimes in a bit of a stream of consciousness style. Different parts seem to jump out at me...I wonder if he did any re-writes or any editing or just wrote as he would talk in a conversation.

pg 143 - "'Consequently' I hope I shall be granted this 'consequently'; at any rate, I don't want to bother to prove it."

pg 153 - "No! Don't come to me with science when I ask for the natural antagonist of the ascetic ideal..."

pg 155 - "No! this 'modern science' - let us face this fact! - is the best ally the ascetic ideal has at present..."

I wish Nietzsche could have been filmed while writing this. I can see him getting really flustered and upset as he writes furiously about those horrendous ascetic priests.

Mechanical Activity - The Blessing of Work

Alright. With this passage, I completely agree and understand what Nietzsche is pointing out. These essays are all over the place and I agree sometimes and completely disagree other times.

Passage on page 134, Section 18 " It is beyond doubt that this regimen alleviates an existence of suffering...human consciousness is small!"

It is completely true. At least for me, when I'm upset...I focus on something entirely different. I work away my problems. I bake away my problems. I run away my problems. It's so hard to face them and struggle with them. It's so much easier just to ignore them and bury oneself in something else. And all kinds of behaviors stem from this concept - obsessive eating, over-exercising, focus on minute detail, overworking, hurting yourself - all these things make you think of something else. These activities force you to pay attention to something else.

It's like with little children. If they're whining and crying about something...pull out something sparkly or new or fun to play with: something to distract them...and they completely forget about whatever they were upset about. Works every time.

Sickness

I'm not really sure that I agree with what Nietzsche's saying about sick people. Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's way too extreme and doesn't really make any sense and isn't at all logical.

"The sick woman spares nothing, living or dead; she will dig up the most deeply buried things." pg 123.

I think Nietzsche goes a little too far with the "hell hath no fury like a scorned woman" piece here.

The part about how sick people "crave to be hangmen." pg 123. Whoa. I really don't believe that sick people - in my head I'm thinking sick people with an actual bodily illness, not a mentally ill person - are "ready to...make one pay." I really don't understand why he thinks this.

This entire passage is a lot more accessible...but the theory that he is trying to demonstrate is a little extreme. I can't seem to be able to formulate some way to try and refute his theory...but I know that something just doesn't make sense.

What is the Third Something?

Nietzsche shows on page 96 that he is, in fact, NOT advocating nihilism. He tries to show that this "man of the future" will get out of the trap that society has caught the rest of us in. It's a very contradictory passage. He seems to advocate nihilism in the beginning of the essay, but now, he makes it clear that he is not.

The last sentence of Chapter 24: "This man of the future, who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal but also from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the will to nothingness, nihilism; this bell-stroke of noon and of the great decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the earth and his hope to man; this Antichrist and antinihilist; this victor over God and nothingness - he must come one day. -

This is a pretty intense assertion. It's a little confusing. What is this man going to be able to do? How will he "liberate the will"? What will give him that power/ability? Who is it going to be?

The last bit:"he must come one day," sounds rather prophetic and messiah-ish. Who is this man of the future and what is he advocating?

Sea Animals

"The situation that faced the sea animals when they were compelled to become land animals or perish was the same as that which faced these semi-animals, well adapted to the wilderness, to war, to prowling, to adventure: suddenly all their instincts were disvalued and "suspended." From now on they had to walk on their feet and "bear themselves" whereas hitherto they had been borne by the water: a dreadful heaviness lay upon them." pg 84

I really like this quote. It's very sad. Nietzsche has evoked emotion - the "dreadful heaviness." It is very effective in describing the negative effects of society upon the instinct of humans.

Nietzsche 2 - Sudden Occurence or Gradual

I found the passage on page 84 and 85 very interesting. At first, I thought that Nietzsche was trying to go against Darwin. Instead of supporting gradual adaptation in response to a change in environment, it seemed like Nietzsche was supporting a sudden, instantaneous change. But then again, it seems sudden to the individual; the change seems sudden because records of the first civilization appear quite suddenly and out of the blue.

BUT. For some reason I was reminded of this article that I'd read a while ago - Now, as opposed to when Nietzsche wrote these essays, there is research and archaeological findings on Lucy, a preserved Stone Age human. Lucy was found to have a bone disease that advanced slowly and gradually over time and induced a lot of pain and suffering.

However, Lucy lived with this disease for an extremely extended period of time, which went against the idea that humans during this time period were isolationist and didn't really associate with one another. Scientists concluded that Lucy must have been cared for by another human in order for her to live as long as she did with such a disease.

So, perhaps Nietzsche is wrong. Perhaps, as Lucy demonstrates, the beginnings of society started sooner than he thought and advanced more gradually.

Favorite part of Nietzche

I never thought I'd actually have a favorite part of Nietzche...but...the part that I like most is this:

"The most convincing example of the latter is the German word schlecht (bad) itself: which is identical with schlicht (plain, simple) - compare with schlechtweg (plainly), schlechterdings (simply)..." page 28.

I never thought to think about how words relate to one another. The origins of words and their roots is fascinating. I never thought of that.

One point for Nietzche. But only one.

Nietzche 1

I'm not really sure what's going on in this book. The first reading was so confusing. I couldn't tell what the book was actually going to be about. What was he trying to explain??

It was almost comical how pompous and self-absorbed this Nietzche is. My favorite part is his explanation of how it's not his fault if the reader doesn't understand what he's trying to say.

"If this book is incomprehensible to anyone and jars on his ears, the fault, is not necessarily mine. It is clear enough, assuming, as I do assume, that one has read my earlier writings and has not spared some trouble in doing so: for they are, indeed, not easy to penetrate." page 22

Well, Nietzche. I don't know what you're trying to say. And I don't believe that it's because I have not read all your other books. Perhaps if you'd actually explain properly what you're trying to say, without all the flowery, unnecessary language, I'd understand.

Thinking like Lao Tzu

I tried today to relax and empty my mind. But I couldn't do it. I tried to make my mind blank. But I just couldn't do it. It was so hard. Meditating is hard.

In my yoga class, there's a meditation period after the session. And I can usually come close to emptying my mind. Mostly because I'm so tired and the music is very soothing.

Maybe music helps. But then again, that's not really emptying your mind because your mind is responding to the notes of the music.

Emptiness is certainly hard to achieve. Perhaps even impossible.

Darwin

While I was studying for the midterm, I read back over some of Darwin's key points. While reading the sexual selection part of Darwin's argument, I remembered something that I'd watched over the summer.

I love this clip. It's hilarious.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EL3ErKWV9g0

Sitting Quietly. Pretending to be Darwin

So. Today I am sitting quietly outside. Pretending to be Darwin. I'm trying to observe and analyze everything I see that interests me. I'm mostly looking at leaves falling and tried to observe any patterns in the way that different leaves from different species of trees fell. Perhaps they twist in those patterns for a reason. I wonder if I just discovered something profound...that leaves of different trees are formed specifically to weave different patterns in the air as they fall.

There is a lonely squirrel puttering around. He/She seems really idle at first glance - fretting back and forth between two trees, but I bet there are tons of things running through his/her head. I wonder what animals feel and think and experience. Is it the same as we feel and think and experience?

This is nice. It's a beautiful day to be outside thinking.

Tao Life Cycles

pg 16

This poem, again, reminds me of Socrates. It describes the life cycles, not quite as compulsively and intensely as Socrates, though.
“Things grow and grow, But each goes back to its root.” This is an example of the life cycles that Socrates describes.
The Tao is describing how people may grow and change, but they will always come back to their original state in the end.

The part where it says “Tao endures. Your body dies. There is no danger” is almost exactly Socrates’ argument. He says to not be afraid of death because your soul will keep going; that being afraid of death is foolish because your body doesn’t really matter.

Tao Favor

pg 13

"Favor debases us. Afraid when we get it, Afraid when we lose it."

I definitely agree with what this poem points out. It’s true – when we gain the favor of someone (a friend, a teacher, a peer) we are suspicious. We enjoy the compliment of having the favor, but still we are a little suspicious - especially if the favor is spontaneous. But, even though we’re suspicious, we still strive to maintain it – We’re afraid that we’ll lose it.

Emptiness

pg 11

"Thirty spokes join one hub. The wheel's use comes from emptiness. Clay is fired to make a pot. The pot's use comes from emptiness. Windows and doors are cut to make a room. The room's use comes from emptiness...Having leads to profit. Not having leads to use."

This poem adheres to almost Socratic logic. There are given examples and then results. I think that it’s a very logical, viable argument. This idea of emptiness is definitely something to ponder. It’s seems so easy to get your head around, but it’s still so confusing. But it seems to work. I’m drinking hot chocolate right now…without emptiness, my mug would be useless.

Tao Te Ching - pg 8

I really enjoy this book of poetry. It's simple but very powerful.

The first poem that caught my eye was on page 8 - the list of rules and suggestions that can help you become close to the Tao

"Live in a good place. Keep your mind deep. Treat others well. Stand by your word. Make fair rules. Do the right thing. Work when it's time."

This seems to me like a really good guide to live your life by. All the noble qualities and characteristics are represented.

However, the next two lines of the poem are a little tricky. "Only do not contend, And you will not go wrong."

I wrote down next to it...'don't ask questions and you'll never be wrong or mistaken.' I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. Questions are a learning experience. Being wrong allows you to understand the qualities given above and strive towards them.

Sameness vs Opposites Attract

As we were discussing Darwin in class today, a little motto/mantra popped into my head - "Opposites attract."

According to Darwin, however, we search for sameness. How did this motto come into being??

Darwin - Close Interbreeding

I'm really interested in Environmental Science, so Darwin makes a lot of sense to me. One of the most interesting things that I've read in Darwin is the arguments he makes about close interbreeding.

"...that close interbreeding diminishes vigour and fertility..." pg 185

This lack of genetic variation is demonstrated in the diminishing cheetah populations. As more cheetahs die out...the remaining cheetahs interbreed with each other. Over and over again...reducing the genetic variation drastically. Without genetic variation, as Darwin states, there is no chance for selection. If a disease were to come upon the cheetahs, there would be no hope. There is no variation in the gene pool. The disease would affect them all without mercy and without any chance for survival for any of the cheetahs.

Obviously, Plato has never been snorkeling...

As I was looking back through Phaedo for some quotes for my essay...I read this:

"Nothing worth mentioning grows in the sea, nothing, one might say, is fully developed; there are caves and sand and endless slime and mud wherever there is earth - nothing comparable in any way with the beauties of our region."

Finally. Socrates has gotten something wrong. He is not all-knowing. Which makes me feel a little better. It's a thrilling moment. He has it completely wrong, if you ask me.

The ocean ecosystems are some of the most detailed and developed ones that you can find. Poor Socrates must never have experienced the joys of snorkeling or deep-sea diving. You would think that, logically, Socrates wouldn't knock something he's never tried or researched extensively...I guess not.

Darwin - Why is it so confusing?!

So. while I was reading Darwin, I began to realize that time seemed to slow down at an incredible rate...i realized, however, why this is so...the material is so dense and full of fact and theory and calculation that it takes much much much longer to read. Skipping one sentence can disrupt your entire interpretation of his theories and observations.

Example - "But this is a very false view: we forget that each species, een where it most abounds, is constantly suffering enormous destruction at some period of its life, from enemies or from competitors for the same place and food; and if these enemies or competitors be in the least degree favoured by any slight change of climate, they will increase in numbers, and, as each area is already fully stocked with inhabitants, the other species will decrease."

That is almost impossible to read quickly. This book forces you to go through it word by word, sentence by sentence. There is no opportunity for scanning, skipping, skimming, or speed-reading.

Perhaps this is why Darwin is so intimidating. That, and his knowledge of the world and the workings of humans, animals, ecosystems, and life itself is so vast and great, that it makes me feel a little lame and kind of pointless when I read it. But maybe by reading this, my knowledge will be increased so that I could at least have an intelligent conversation with him. Were he still alive.

Opportunity Cost and Plato

As I was searching through my books for quotes for my essay...I came upon this:

"Do you not think, he said that in general such a man's concern is not with the body but that, as far as he can, he turns away from the body towards the soul?"

For some reason, opportunity cost just jumped into my mind. Opportunity cost is what we've been learning about in Econ these past few weeks - it's the value of what you give up in order to do something else. it's basically the next best thing that you could have had if you hadn't chosen what you chose.

if that makes any sense at all.

it just popped into my head. not sure why. but it did.

The Socratic Method

The Socratic method is a way of teaching via questioning. What we were discussing in class today really helped me to understand this reading.

In order to be able to ask questions about a particular subject, one must have previously established assumptions of that subject.

On page 31 is an example of how Socrates makes his arguments. "Which does the soul resemble?..."

But I don't think that assumptions are the right way of going about trying to learn or teach anyone.

I suppose that Socrates is trying to make sense of his assumptions and thoughts by talking them through. And that he has already thought about these subjects. He's a pretty old man...he's had plenty of time to figure things out. Perhaps his conversations are a way of showing what he has accomplished through out his life. He says in Trial and Death that he has not accomplished much of the things that "normal" men have. But he must have accomplished something.

I can't remember the exact quote...but to paraphrase...Socrates says that he doesn't have any money..etc...he is poor and without luxuries.

Perhaps Socrates' arguments are a way to show off - they are something he is proud of...

Learning - Questions

I think that Socrates has a plan...that he guides his audience to HIS conclusions. The questions that he asks prompt his audience to feel like they are coming up with their own conclusions, when really, they are being led to Socrates' interpretations/conclusions.

Then again. I associate learning with questioning. And who is doing all the questioning ? Socrates. Is he learning? Or is he teaching?

I don't have a definite quote for this particular blog...choose any page in which Socrates attempts to have a "discussion." I put this in quotations because the conversations between Socrates and his audience are not really true discussions. A true discussion must include various opinions. In each conversation there is only one opinion - that of Socrates.

Pages 28 to 30 illustrate what I'm trying to say.

Socrates - What is he trying to say?

As I go back through the dialogue trying to make sense of what Socrates is trying to get across to the men of Athens...I am sort of getting around to it...Sort of.

I think that Socrates is trying to show his humility, but it seems to come across as rather abrupt and sarcastic.

"I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know." pg 25 between letter d and e

I think that Socrates is trying to humble himself and attempt to get the court to understand that he does not pretend to know something that he really doesn't know. Unfortunately for Socrates, he sounds a little pompous and self-congratulatory when he says this. He sets himself above the men who pretend to know things that they are really ignorant about - saying that he is wiser than them...but not by much - "to this small extent".

The Trial and Death of Socrates - 1

The first chapter of Plato was extremely confusing.

It seemed to me like Euthyphro and Socrates were constantly going around and around in circles. Poor Euthyphro. He seemed like he was really backed into a corner. I feel like Socrates was taunting him; making him feel like he really didn't have any answers; slowly chipping away at poor Euthyphro's self-confidence right before his big trial.

One of the quotes that I have chosen to blog about is this:
"Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it s being loved by the gods?" - Socrates, page 11

From page 11 to page 13...boggles my mind. I can understand how Euthyphro would just agree and accept what Socrates says...Socrates is extremely convoluted and confusing. I don't like Socrates very much. He seems too sure of himself; too confident that he has the correct answer.

Although, I agree that inquiry is the key to learning - that questions help you understand and comprehend. I feel like maybe Socrates already has his answer in mind...that he is trying to draw the same answer out of Euthyphro by asking leading questions. Perhaps the confusing questions are meant to be so...so that Socrates can assert his superior knowledge and demean Euthyphro.

White Castle 1

I can't decide whether or not I like this book. It's intriguing, perplexing, challenging etc...a puzzle to solve. But I don't know if I would have continued reading the book if I had not had to for this class. It is confusing to the point that the plot is compromised.

However, the end...the puzzle is left unsolved and the resolution, or lack of resolution, is weirdly satisfying. It leaves you with questions. A wide range of really deep and intense questions...depending upon how you interpret the story and it's plot and characters.

And, in order to really connect with a story, you have to connect with the characters. There are no precise, unique, definite characters in this novel. As the story progresses, the characters get increasingly more vague and blurry. What traits had made them distinguishable are lost as the you get closer to the end.

New Blog

Blog test