Raskolnikov is an intriguing character. After completing Crime and Punishment over the break, I tried to recall what I thought about him at different stages of the book. "Was he sane? Was he lonely? Did his family abandon him? What a weirdo! He's smart, tactical to some degree. Has he loved? Did he choose to cross the bridges he did? He should be punished or should not"...etc.
While contemplating my notes on his behaviors, I realized one thing: that throughout the book I never stuck to one conclusion and after having completed it, I still cannot. Because the choices he made were his but to what degree did society influence the character they bred? So, I found that he was a bit of a lot of things and though a criminal he may be, a loving brother he was as well. I asked myself whether we, the readers, supposedly objective observers, are able to pass judgement on circumstances we cannot possibly understand. Sure, we try. Dostoevsky tries to show us. But the reason behind trying and being successful are different, for trying requires a need for order and sense.
But who is Rask really? Just what the heck is his problem and why did we read about him for 600 pages? I think it was because we have no idea what determines right and wrong and though the definition may be a dividing line, we know that somewhere it is blurred...where punishment is defined.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
So Far...
...I feel a little lost, a little found and a little uncertain. Finally! We have come to the tip of the cliff, the view is everything we'd hoped for and the wanderers we are will now begin in a new direction. It seems that we have conquered so much of the world but we have only just started and though the bittersweet end provides some perspective, we are otherwise totally blind to the future and exactly how big it really is.
Something that recently came up: Sarah Finn and I were driving to Stanford in the rain when my car spun out and halted to a stop after I vainly tried to control the car and then let go. (Sarah was in the car ahead of me.)
I have never experienced such a scary incident and am lucky. However, without going too far into metaphors, I realized that within that moment I could have been dead from losing control and well, the thought never even occurred to me before that. As an ambitious 17 year old, I've felt a bit invincible and now, in some ways, I
realize how fragile it all really is.
Well, there is no way to predict the outcome of things and the uncertainty is what makes it exciting but keep in mind that it's not forever so take advantage of it all...don't just enjoy the view, find more.
Something that recently came up: Sarah Finn and I were driving to Stanford in the rain when my car spun out and halted to a stop after I vainly tried to control the car and then let go. (Sarah was in the car ahead of me.)
I have never experienced such a scary incident and am lucky. However, without going too far into metaphors, I realized that within that moment I could have been dead from losing control and well, the thought never even occurred to me before that. As an ambitious 17 year old, I've felt a bit invincible and now, in some ways, I
realize how fragile it all really is.
Well, there is no way to predict the outcome of things and the uncertainty is what makes it exciting but keep in mind that it's not forever so take advantage of it all...don't just enjoy the view, find more.
The Road
For my last literature in-class essay, I read The Road.
A fascinating tale of a personal story of humanity and will, the novel revealed that hard as we may try, we have a tendency within ourselves to protect who we are and what we believe in.
Simultaneously reading Crime and Punishment, I asked myself whether this innate human characteristic applied to all. My conclusion was that it did. Though it may be that Rask could divide right and wrong and that he intentionally committed a crime, there was a principle behind his actions that I wonder if he could control.
Society has created law and order so that they may believe in a greater good and so that the possibility of ultimate demise does not reflect one's own tragic flaw. Examples of religion and government reveal how these ideas have possessed humanity and most importantly how they have determined the definition of mankind's right and wrong.
Rask fulfilled a purpose. It is hard to say whether that purpose was predetermined, controllable or unpredicatable because we cannot analyze his brain circuits. This is what scares us most. That there is the possibility that what he did was carefully orchestrated and he was aware of it is frightful but what is more so is the possibility tht is was not. This is where punishment comes in.
The nature of mankind is unpredicatable and above all uncertain. The rules we create and the ramifications we enforce are what make us feel like we have control over something we cannot even define. Though there are cases where the research and analyzation of behavior ties up loose ends, it is the ones that we cannot understand that truly enforce punishment.
There is no doubt that we have traits that we cannot escape but it is questionable whether those traits can be controlled and what we are capable of if they cannot.
A fascinating tale of a personal story of humanity and will, the novel revealed that hard as we may try, we have a tendency within ourselves to protect who we are and what we believe in.
Simultaneously reading Crime and Punishment, I asked myself whether this innate human characteristic applied to all. My conclusion was that it did. Though it may be that Rask could divide right and wrong and that he intentionally committed a crime, there was a principle behind his actions that I wonder if he could control.
Society has created law and order so that they may believe in a greater good and so that the possibility of ultimate demise does not reflect one's own tragic flaw. Examples of religion and government reveal how these ideas have possessed humanity and most importantly how they have determined the definition of mankind's right and wrong.
Rask fulfilled a purpose. It is hard to say whether that purpose was predetermined, controllable or unpredicatable because we cannot analyze his brain circuits. This is what scares us most. That there is the possibility that what he did was carefully orchestrated and he was aware of it is frightful but what is more so is the possibility tht is was not. This is where punishment comes in.
The nature of mankind is unpredicatable and above all uncertain. The rules we create and the ramifications we enforce are what make us feel like we have control over something we cannot even define. Though there are cases where the research and analyzation of behavior ties up loose ends, it is the ones that we cannot understand that truly enforce punishment.
There is no doubt that we have traits that we cannot escape but it is questionable whether those traits can be controlled and what we are capable of if they cannot.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Formalities
This past week, the cabinet and I have been organizing our schools semi-formal. In the process several things happened: stress manifested, miscommunications occurred and uncooperation was at its highest. What we realized was that Facebook has nothing to do with faces.
Technology has come through our world like Godzilla, stepping on everything in its way. Some of these things, don't get me wrong, have been outstanding advances into the future of communication. However, on the other hand, significant devolvment from the common courtesy of manners has stricken the world. What internet communication offers is convenience and affordability, escape and hideout. Things are said online that would never be said in person and although we have grown to more advanced means of education, governance and technology, we have been severely limited in ways of social interaction. Our cabinet suffered from this. Between the facebook message threads and text messages, the message was lost. It was no longer a team working through communication but communication breaking through a team.
These formalities of formal gave us a little persepective. We discussed, as a group, face-to-face the problem with online communication as well as the benefits. Mostly we learned about each person's preference and, since all of us agreed, I can guess that most of the human race likes to be addressed by the senses rather than sentences. It was an important lesson for us, as we go off into a constantly developing world. What was most important, however, was the ascknowledgment that when you type on a computer, another person is going to read it...not a machine.
Sometimes, among the hustle and bustle, this is easy to forget.
So, I guess the main idea is: Let's talk.
Technology has come through our world like Godzilla, stepping on everything in its way. Some of these things, don't get me wrong, have been outstanding advances into the future of communication. However, on the other hand, significant devolvment from the common courtesy of manners has stricken the world. What internet communication offers is convenience and affordability, escape and hideout. Things are said online that would never be said in person and although we have grown to more advanced means of education, governance and technology, we have been severely limited in ways of social interaction. Our cabinet suffered from this. Between the facebook message threads and text messages, the message was lost. It was no longer a team working through communication but communication breaking through a team.
These formalities of formal gave us a little persepective. We discussed, as a group, face-to-face the problem with online communication as well as the benefits. Mostly we learned about each person's preference and, since all of us agreed, I can guess that most of the human race likes to be addressed by the senses rather than sentences. It was an important lesson for us, as we go off into a constantly developing world. What was most important, however, was the ascknowledgment that when you type on a computer, another person is going to read it...not a machine.
Sometimes, among the hustle and bustle, this is easy to forget.
So, I guess the main idea is: Let's talk.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Superwar
As I watched the biggest game of the NFL last night, I could only think of one thing. As the men lined up face to face, tackled eachother, devised plans, gained and lost as a team, what occured to me was war. The football game, in all of its entertaining glory, is a recreation of human nature and a simplified game of war. This got me thinking about my research project and its relation to Heart of Darkness. Humanity, even in its most civilized, still honors the game of war. The capabilites of mankind are all drawn back to nature, where the most simple of things is the most important: survival.
The parallels of my research topic with the Superbowl are constant. Although I already had some idea, now it is clear that human nature is violent as well as tactical. Most of all, however, human nature is incurable. The things we were capable of in the seventeenth century still apply to us today. The games of battle we played for our empires centuries ago have become the number one grossing entertainment sport today. We have not changed, and while I realize that I am part of a progressive but innately natural race, I feel that it could change.
There are elements of human nature that need not be changed or corrected, however, the eternal will that maintains war and genocide in the world are what must be modified. Although everything I look at points me in the direction of "it's simply survival," I know that we have evolved from the cavemen of King Leopold...it is no longer necessary, if it ever was. What I am trying to say is that, though civilization may maintain its innate power of survival, it does not need to maintain its innate will of violence. There are those of us who would never sacrifice another human life for that of onesself and it is a band of those people who would change history.
The question is: "What is right?" Do we have a right to violence and civil disobedience for the survival of ourselves and our offspring? Or are we supposed to have evolved from the animalistic tendencies of our ancestors?
The question is, for now, individualized.
The parallels of my research topic with the Superbowl are constant. Although I already had some idea, now it is clear that human nature is violent as well as tactical. Most of all, however, human nature is incurable. The things we were capable of in the seventeenth century still apply to us today. The games of battle we played for our empires centuries ago have become the number one grossing entertainment sport today. We have not changed, and while I realize that I am part of a progressive but innately natural race, I feel that it could change.
There are elements of human nature that need not be changed or corrected, however, the eternal will that maintains war and genocide in the world are what must be modified. Although everything I look at points me in the direction of "it's simply survival," I know that we have evolved from the cavemen of King Leopold...it is no longer necessary, if it ever was. What I am trying to say is that, though civilization may maintain its innate power of survival, it does not need to maintain its innate will of violence. There are those of us who would never sacrifice another human life for that of onesself and it is a band of those people who would change history.
The question is: "What is right?" Do we have a right to violence and civil disobedience for the survival of ourselves and our offspring? Or are we supposed to have evolved from the animalistic tendencies of our ancestors?
The question is, for now, individualized.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
It is all about the "redeeming idea." Humans do things for the good of the order, supposedly. We follow an unwritten code of maintaining civilization, however we must. What is interesting is our capability of destroying it in the process. The idea is the catalyst of both the greatest and most horrifying capabilities of mankind. That is why I intend to understand t better, through my essay. As Marlow says, "an unselfish belief in the idea" is what allows the "civilized" to sacrifice their exterior for their truth, which "is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much." Humanity is indefinite and most of the time unpredicatble. I want to know how I would behave under particular circumstances. I want to know how "human" I am. It is this desire that leads me to a profound interest in exploring because although I may never be put in such a situation, my character will reveal my choices to me. Discovery! is what I have to look forward to, both in Heart of Darkness and in the heart of life.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Humanity
We are capable of the most glorious accomplishments in history. We have ventured to the final frontier and created cures for the most deadliest diseases. We have created a constitution of governance and overcome tremendous disaster and war; we are seemingly the well oiled machines of a divine power. But, it is when we see throught the looking glass of repeated history and human oppression that, it is revealed that humanity is extraordinary. No machine is capable of such emotional connection and disillusion as we. We, as a species, are inherently flawed in the nature of our survival...in instances such as crimes of war or genocide, the true capabilities of man triumph and those of us not involved are left to stand at a distance and wonder: "what am I capable of? And why?"
Why is it that these moral attrocities occur in such a modern age? Well, because the nature of humans is never modern. It dates back to our first days of existence: survival. We are fated to do what we must in order to carry on. This fascinating truth is what gives me perspective in Heart of Darkness. When I imagine myself in the armpit of Africa, I cannot imagine myself as Marlowe or kurtz, only as me. And I place myself in their story and suggest to myself that I might not be any better at dealing with the circumstances they face, as much as I wish I could say I would. The most interestingthing though, is that I do not know. I cannot know what I would be capable of in circumstances that threatened my moral principles or life.
Through the discovery and interpretation of both Heart of Darkness and my final project, I will learn the standards by which others and maybe I myself would maintain in humanity's ugliest day.
Why is it that these moral attrocities occur in such a modern age? Well, because the nature of humans is never modern. It dates back to our first days of existence: survival. We are fated to do what we must in order to carry on. This fascinating truth is what gives me perspective in Heart of Darkness. When I imagine myself in the armpit of Africa, I cannot imagine myself as Marlowe or kurtz, only as me. And I place myself in their story and suggest to myself that I might not be any better at dealing with the circumstances they face, as much as I wish I could say I would. The most interestingthing though, is that I do not know. I cannot know what I would be capable of in circumstances that threatened my moral principles or life.
Through the discovery and interpretation of both Heart of Darkness and my final project, I will learn the standards by which others and maybe I myself would maintain in humanity's ugliest day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
