After watching Sound and Fury, I realized how sheltered I am. I am rarely exposed to people who can't hear, and this movie really woke me up. This, of course, is because of the two main discourses in the film. These discourses were the hearing and the deaf. The movie clearly showed both sides and their arguments through the journey of deciding whether to get cochlear implants.
The people that could hear generally fought for the cochlear implants. Their main argument was based on the idea that hearing people have more opportunities in the future. They claimed that a person with a cochlear implant would have an advantage to the deaf because they could talk, hear, and still even be able to understand sign language. It was even pointed out that a deaf person would not be able to pursue a job such as a surgeon; whereas, if that person got the cochlear important, he/she would have that opportunity. The hearing also argued that because of this, the parents would technically be abusing their children by not giving them the chance. This side of the argument truly believed that getting a cochlear implant would significantly help the children's future.
The deaf people, for the most part, fought against the cochlear implants. They mainly argued that getting a cochlear implant would ruin the deaf culture. They feared that this implant would slowly kill the culture, and they wanted their children to remain part of that culture. They went even further to worry that these children with cochlear implants would be stuck between the hearing and deaf worlds, and they wouldn't have as much of a place in the world. Another worry that they had involved the idea that it wasn't a bullet-proof solution to the hearing problem. They argued, with reason, that cochlear implants didn't always help enough. Some children with cochlear implants were still unable to speak or hear as well as they had expected.
These two discourses definitely have a different view on the issue of cochlear implants. The deaf typically decide against it and consider it outrageous as it may destroy the culture. The hearing usually argue for the implant as they claim that they know what hearing is like and how great the advantage is. Both sides have reasonable arguments, and this makes the question of the implant even more difficult to decide. By exposing viewers to both discourses, the film makes even those who think they know what they think second guess themselves entirely.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Fear of Swallowing Fish Bones
One day when I was little, my dad, brother, sister, and I were eating fish that we had just caught. My dad had cooked it up in some sort of floury batter, and it was delicious. As I was eating, he warned me to make sure that I chew the fish thoroughly. Of course, I had no idea why he would say that, so I just assumed that he was joking. He quickly made it clear that he wasn't joking by telling me that any small fish bones that weren't removed when the fish were filleted could get stuck in my throat. I, then, made the mistake of asking if it was painful.
He admitted that sometimes it could be somewhat painful or at least uncomfortable. This alone worried me, but to make it worse, my brother butted in. He went on to tell me that it had happened to him once. He described how painful it was with, in my eyes, excrutiating details (they probably weren't that great; I was just young and innocent and believed anything--even if he said he had caught the biggest fish ever in the history of everything but let it go). He said that it hurt for days. I then asked him how I was unaware of this. He answered with the big brother response of something like "I hid it from you because I didn't want to scare you." It was too late for that though. Even when he admitted that he made it all up, I still could not forget my new fear.
After I found out that he was joking, I still couldn't shake the fear that someday I would swallow a fish bone, it would get stuck in my throat, and it would hurt like never before. In order to avoid this inevitable future, I have always partaken in the art of careful chewing of fish. Whether it is fresh caught fish or store bought fish, I always chew one bite for what seems like ten hours. I chew it until I'm am absolutely positive that my throat will not suffer as my brother had once pretended his had. Because of my seemingly silly fear, I will always have extreme caution, and hopefully, I will never have to face my fear.
He admitted that sometimes it could be somewhat painful or at least uncomfortable. This alone worried me, but to make it worse, my brother butted in. He went on to tell me that it had happened to him once. He described how painful it was with, in my eyes, excrutiating details (they probably weren't that great; I was just young and innocent and believed anything--even if he said he had caught the biggest fish ever in the history of everything but let it go). He said that it hurt for days. I then asked him how I was unaware of this. He answered with the big brother response of something like "I hid it from you because I didn't want to scare you." It was too late for that though. Even when he admitted that he made it all up, I still could not forget my new fear.
After I found out that he was joking, I still couldn't shake the fear that someday I would swallow a fish bone, it would get stuck in my throat, and it would hurt like never before. In order to avoid this inevitable future, I have always partaken in the art of careful chewing of fish. Whether it is fresh caught fish or store bought fish, I always chew one bite for what seems like ten hours. I chew it until I'm am absolutely positive that my throat will not suffer as my brother had once pretended his had. Because of my seemingly silly fear, I will always have extreme caution, and hopefully, I will never have to face my fear.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A Semiotic Analysis of a Pencil
When I think of a pencil, I think of the typical number 2 pencil. The one with the orange-yellow surface, a sharp tip, and a pink eraser on the end. The kind that teachers always give to us if we don't have a pencil for standardized testing. We all know what these writing utensils are used for, and we know that they are an important object for the process of recording. My question is: does this simple artifact of our culture reveal something much more meaningful than what would be expected? In my opinion, there is a solid yes to this question.
As I eluded to earlier, pencils reveal our need to record ideas, names, lists, etc. It's a way for us to remember what we would otherwise lose in our overfilled filing cabinet of a brain. While being able to record what we need to remember, we can also change what needs changing with the nifty little eraser on the end of the pencil. These pencils not only combat our forgetfulness, but they also allow us to back up our caprices (vocab word!!!! It means "tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive"). So basically what I am saying here is that our culture is linked with the need to record and change. We can't just rely in a utensil that will make what we are saying permanent. Our culture requires adjustment.
I also noticed that there are times when pencils are thrown aside for....pens. Sometimes, pencils aren't used because people don't want there to be a chance for something to be erased or changed. For example, when doing experiments and recording in a lab notebook, one should always use a pen because a pencil allows for things to be changed or erased. If a pencil is used, the experiment isn't as valid because bad results could've easily been hidden by erasing what isn't desired. The fact that a pencil isn't always welcome in our society for reasons like this shows that our culture may have a little dishonesty in it. Because of the fact that we have to take these precautions and follow these rules, it shows that there are times when lies come before honesty.
Pencils play a role in our culture by allowing our society to remember, forget, modify, and lie. How else are pencils connected to our culture? What would we be like without pencils, pens, or anything else similar to these objects?
As I eluded to earlier, pencils reveal our need to record ideas, names, lists, etc. It's a way for us to remember what we would otherwise lose in our overfilled filing cabinet of a brain. While being able to record what we need to remember, we can also change what needs changing with the nifty little eraser on the end of the pencil. These pencils not only combat our forgetfulness, but they also allow us to back up our caprices (vocab word!!!! It means "tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive"). So basically what I am saying here is that our culture is linked with the need to record and change. We can't just rely in a utensil that will make what we are saying permanent. Our culture requires adjustment.
I also noticed that there are times when pencils are thrown aside for....pens. Sometimes, pencils aren't used because people don't want there to be a chance for something to be erased or changed. For example, when doing experiments and recording in a lab notebook, one should always use a pen because a pencil allows for things to be changed or erased. If a pencil is used, the experiment isn't as valid because bad results could've easily been hidden by erasing what isn't desired. The fact that a pencil isn't always welcome in our society for reasons like this shows that our culture may have a little dishonesty in it. Because of the fact that we have to take these precautions and follow these rules, it shows that there are times when lies come before honesty.
Pencils play a role in our culture by allowing our society to remember, forget, modify, and lie. How else are pencils connected to our culture? What would we be like without pencils, pens, or anything else similar to these objects?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Obama vs. The Others
Looking at the words used in President Barack Obama's inaugural address, a few words instantly stuck out to me--men, women, and prosperity. Both men and women were both used four times, and prosperity was used three. I know this doesn't seem very important since they weren't used very often in the whole scheme of the address, but I was, nonetheless, able to make some substantial observations based on Obama's and the rest of the presidents' word choice.
Throughout Obama's address, he always said the phrase "men and women." When I say always, I mean he literally never addressed only one sex. At this time in history, this may seem normal and even expected, but it wasn't always like this. Instead of comparing Obama's word choice to a specific president, I chose to compare him to all of the past presidents. By clicking on the word in the word cloud in "Inaugural Words: 1789 to the Present" from New York Times, I was able to see how often the other presidents used the word. According to that information, the first time women was actually used in an inaugural address was by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Even though I know and understand that women weren't considered to be equal to men during earlier times, this finding still shocked me. This really emphasized the idea that "back in the day" women were inferior to men. This choice of using--or not using--these words serves as a perfect reminder of how our society has changed over the years with equality and freedom.
As I said before, I also noticed that the word prosperity was used. This would have never stuck out to me if I hadn't clicked on the word itself. By doing this, I was able to see that the usage of prosperity has declined quite a bit. Over time, this word was used in 33 different inaugural addresses (if I counted right) out of the 56 total; however, over the last 15 inaugural addresses, the word has only been used in 5 of those addresses. This may seem to hold little importance, but the truth is that prosperity was used way more often earlier on.
My take on this is that prosperity used to hold more weight than it has in the recent years. I think in the earlier years, when America was growing and uniting, prosperity was an important goal. Perhaps, maybe the reason the word hasn't been used as much is because there are other more important goals of the nation and people today like wars, jobs, etc. I am not saying that during the last 15 inaugural addresses the president and our nation did not want success. I am just bringing forth the idea that maybe this idea of success isn't in the front of our minds anymore. I think Obama may have chosen to use this word to remind America of this important goal, and he may even hope to spark a drive for even better prosperity. His usage of this word shows that sometimes looking back at old goals is actually a good start for a step forward in an unsure economy.
I guess to sum it all up, Obama has used both different and similar words to what has been used in the past. He has even strayed from the pack of presidents of the current time to use language of presidents long ago. The language used now and then is a huge indication for the social, economic, political, national, and even world issues that play a role in our nation.
Throughout Obama's address, he always said the phrase "men and women." When I say always, I mean he literally never addressed only one sex. At this time in history, this may seem normal and even expected, but it wasn't always like this. Instead of comparing Obama's word choice to a specific president, I chose to compare him to all of the past presidents. By clicking on the word in the word cloud in "Inaugural Words: 1789 to the Present" from New York Times, I was able to see how often the other presidents used the word. According to that information, the first time women was actually used in an inaugural address was by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Even though I know and understand that women weren't considered to be equal to men during earlier times, this finding still shocked me. This really emphasized the idea that "back in the day" women were inferior to men. This choice of using--or not using--these words serves as a perfect reminder of how our society has changed over the years with equality and freedom.
As I said before, I also noticed that the word prosperity was used. This would have never stuck out to me if I hadn't clicked on the word itself. By doing this, I was able to see that the usage of prosperity has declined quite a bit. Over time, this word was used in 33 different inaugural addresses (if I counted right) out of the 56 total; however, over the last 15 inaugural addresses, the word has only been used in 5 of those addresses. This may seem to hold little importance, but the truth is that prosperity was used way more often earlier on.
My take on this is that prosperity used to hold more weight than it has in the recent years. I think in the earlier years, when America was growing and uniting, prosperity was an important goal. Perhaps, maybe the reason the word hasn't been used as much is because there are other more important goals of the nation and people today like wars, jobs, etc. I am not saying that during the last 15 inaugural addresses the president and our nation did not want success. I am just bringing forth the idea that maybe this idea of success isn't in the front of our minds anymore. I think Obama may have chosen to use this word to remind America of this important goal, and he may even hope to spark a drive for even better prosperity. His usage of this word shows that sometimes looking back at old goals is actually a good start for a step forward in an unsure economy.
I guess to sum it all up, Obama has used both different and similar words to what has been used in the past. He has even strayed from the pack of presidents of the current time to use language of presidents long ago. The language used now and then is a huge indication for the social, economic, political, national, and even world issues that play a role in our nation.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Corn Maze of Writing
I've been to a couple of corn mazes here and there. No matter where I go, it all starts and ends the same way. First, I pick my first path. Should I go on the path towards the right? Or maybe I should go down the path straight infront of me? After getting advice from my friends and family who have come along for the adventure, I decide the right looks more promising. Why? I'm not really sure. Despite this, I enter the maze with fake confidence as my group follows behind not really paying attention to where I am going. As I travel further and further past the walls of corn, I realize that I need help. I could stumble along taking random turns and hoping that the outcome will turn out to be advantageous. I could even decide to take a little trip through the corn and hope that nobody notices me, but this would be cheating, and I'm not that kind of girl! I turn and ask my fellow lost buddies for help. We retrace my steps and come up with different and better ways to go. All of a sudden, I reach another dead end. I don't know where to go! I turn around and go a different way. As I walk more and more, I feel as if I am almost to where I need to be, but then....dead end! Once again, I enlist in my support for more advice. THEN....I can feel the end coming near. The opening in the corn grows larger, and I see the end of the maze. I am finished. I am relieved, but even better, I am ecstatic. I did it! Even though I'm extremely happy to have made it through, part of me wants to try it all over again....
I guess one could say that a corn maze is like writing. At first, you may be unsure of what to write about, but you can take your first steps once talking with peers or friends about ideas of topics and stories. Then, it almost seems easy, as words flow onto the page...or as you think you know which way to go in the maze. All of a sudden, you hit a dead end and don't know where to go. This is NOT the part where you cheat and plagiarize (cut through the corn).This is the part where you ask others for advice, and just like with the maze, they look over everything you have already done and suggest new and potentially better ideas. Once you are finished, that feeling of relief and happiness rushes in, but along with it comes the feeling of "let's do it again!" In both cases, with writing and going through a corn maze, the journey is difficult and sometimes requires a step back or advice from some friends. During the maze/writing, the feeling of giving up often sets in, but for the most part, you know that you want to finish--show that you can do it. The best part, though, is when it is all done, and you know you accomplished something worthwhile--even if others don't realize the greatness of your work.
I guess one could say that a corn maze is like writing. At first, you may be unsure of what to write about, but you can take your first steps once talking with peers or friends about ideas of topics and stories. Then, it almost seems easy, as words flow onto the page...or as you think you know which way to go in the maze. All of a sudden, you hit a dead end and don't know where to go. This is NOT the part where you cheat and plagiarize (cut through the corn).This is the part where you ask others for advice, and just like with the maze, they look over everything you have already done and suggest new and potentially better ideas. Once you are finished, that feeling of relief and happiness rushes in, but along with it comes the feeling of "let's do it again!" In both cases, with writing and going through a corn maze, the journey is difficult and sometimes requires a step back or advice from some friends. During the maze/writing, the feeling of giving up often sets in, but for the most part, you know that you want to finish--show that you can do it. The best part, though, is when it is all done, and you know you accomplished something worthwhile--even if others don't realize the greatness of your work.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy
For my AP Composition book, I read the full 236 pages of Lucy Grealy's Autobiography of a Face (along with an Afterword by Ann Patchett). Lucy Grealy takes her readers on a sad but fulfilling adventure through her suffering, joy, and realizations throughout her struggle with cancer, acceptance, and life in general. The book actually begins in the middle of her battle with cancer allowing us to be introduced to the life-changing disease immediately. Then, after the prologue, Lucy Grealy goes back to fourth grade and explains just how the cancer was discovered, and she continues on with her memory of one-third of her jaw being removed and explains with pain-staking details about how she was treated by others during and after cancer. Grealy also describes the various treatments that she encountered in order to fight off her early death sentence and reveals exactly what she went through in attempt to look "normal" again. Grealy truly expresses the battle within oneself on whether being loved for being yourself is more or less important than being loved for being a perfect somebody else.
It was an unbelievable book in both the account of what happened and the way in which it was written. I can't even describe how many times I stopped reading in awe of how she had worded simple sentences. For example, she said, "Sweat rolled down the side of my rib cage, a rib cage so skinny I could feel the drops momentarily rest above the ridge of each bone." She was able to create poetic sentences like these because of the perfect details that she added to her story. She didn't leave anything out, which allowed me to sometimes imagine or even feel exactly what was going on.
I have to say that one of my favorite parts of this book was not the story itself; it was the little ideas of life and the ways/rules that people live by. Grealy had numerous statements throughout the book that completely blew my mind because not only did she come up with them, but she also described them in impeccable detail. For example, she presented her ideas about the correlation between the past and future by explaining, "Sometimes it is as difficult to know what the past holds as it is to know the future, and just as an answer to a riddle seems so obvious once it is revealed, it seems curious to me now that I passed through all those early moments with no idea of their weight." There were so many other ideas that she expressed through her writing; however, this post would never end if I even attempted to point them all out.
Before I discuss what the Afterword was about, I want to just touch on one of the main themes throughout this outstanding book. Lucy Grealy constantly brought up the idea that one should be grateful for what he/she has. As a sixth grader, Grealy showed her early maturity when talking about the foolish boys that made fun of her. She questioned, "Didn't they know they could lose everything at any moment, that you couldn't take anything good or worthwhile for granted, because pain and cruelty could and would arrive sooner or later?" Grealy even admitted that what she lost (her jaw) wasn't the worst case scenerio. She met a young man named Michael who became paralyzed from doing something stupid. Grealy was able to realize that Michael would never get back what he lost, where as, Grealy's face had only been changed. She was able to be grateful for what she had because she knew that, at any point, something could change her life forever.
The Afterword was probably another one of my favorite parts of the book; however, it was written by Ann Patchett, not by Lucy Grealy. Ann Patchett was one of Lucy Grealy's best friends, and she was able to reveal to readers yet another side of Grealy. She explained that Grealy did not write the book for sympathy or to be an inspiration. She wrote the book simply to create a work of art that was meant to be judged solely on a literary basis. Patchett also explained how Grealy chose to write her book. Grealy did not write about everything that happened to her because she knew it would be to hard for the reader to handle, and she could only guess that readers would not have the bravery that she had to have in order to read about the entire truth. Patchett was also able to show readers Grealy's personality even further, which really enhanced the book as a whole.
I REALLY enjoyed reading this book. There were so many ideas that intrigued me; in fact, I would have to say that Grealy's writing itself intrigued me as well. I don't have any words that could describe how great this book was as a whole. Grealy's account of her life was heart-breaking but also thought provoking. Patchett did an excellent job of ending her late friend's story by revealing everything behind Grealy's writing. This book alone will change how I look at people, live life, and cherish what I have.
READ THIS BOOK!!!!!
It was an unbelievable book in both the account of what happened and the way in which it was written. I can't even describe how many times I stopped reading in awe of how she had worded simple sentences. For example, she said, "Sweat rolled down the side of my rib cage, a rib cage so skinny I could feel the drops momentarily rest above the ridge of each bone." She was able to create poetic sentences like these because of the perfect details that she added to her story. She didn't leave anything out, which allowed me to sometimes imagine or even feel exactly what was going on.
I have to say that one of my favorite parts of this book was not the story itself; it was the little ideas of life and the ways/rules that people live by. Grealy had numerous statements throughout the book that completely blew my mind because not only did she come up with them, but she also described them in impeccable detail. For example, she presented her ideas about the correlation between the past and future by explaining, "Sometimes it is as difficult to know what the past holds as it is to know the future, and just as an answer to a riddle seems so obvious once it is revealed, it seems curious to me now that I passed through all those early moments with no idea of their weight." There were so many other ideas that she expressed through her writing; however, this post would never end if I even attempted to point them all out.
Before I discuss what the Afterword was about, I want to just touch on one of the main themes throughout this outstanding book. Lucy Grealy constantly brought up the idea that one should be grateful for what he/she has. As a sixth grader, Grealy showed her early maturity when talking about the foolish boys that made fun of her. She questioned, "Didn't they know they could lose everything at any moment, that you couldn't take anything good or worthwhile for granted, because pain and cruelty could and would arrive sooner or later?" Grealy even admitted that what she lost (her jaw) wasn't the worst case scenerio. She met a young man named Michael who became paralyzed from doing something stupid. Grealy was able to realize that Michael would never get back what he lost, where as, Grealy's face had only been changed. She was able to be grateful for what she had because she knew that, at any point, something could change her life forever.
The Afterword was probably another one of my favorite parts of the book; however, it was written by Ann Patchett, not by Lucy Grealy. Ann Patchett was one of Lucy Grealy's best friends, and she was able to reveal to readers yet another side of Grealy. She explained that Grealy did not write the book for sympathy or to be an inspiration. She wrote the book simply to create a work of art that was meant to be judged solely on a literary basis. Patchett also explained how Grealy chose to write her book. Grealy did not write about everything that happened to her because she knew it would be to hard for the reader to handle, and she could only guess that readers would not have the bravery that she had to have in order to read about the entire truth. Patchett was also able to show readers Grealy's personality even further, which really enhanced the book as a whole.
I REALLY enjoyed reading this book. There were so many ideas that intrigued me; in fact, I would have to say that Grealy's writing itself intrigued me as well. I don't have any words that could describe how great this book was as a whole. Grealy's account of her life was heart-breaking but also thought provoking. Patchett did an excellent job of ending her late friend's story by revealing everything behind Grealy's writing. This book alone will change how I look at people, live life, and cherish what I have.
READ THIS BOOK!!!!!
Friday, August 19, 2011
The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed
As I started to read Mary Wollstonecraft's thoughts on the rights of women, I realized that I was in for more than I had anticipated. Yes, I knew it would be a lengthy and informative account, but I was not able to foresee how intelligent her opinions and arguments against the famous thoughts of yet even more famous people would be. Wollstonecraft showed immense passion for the fight for equality, which really made me realize how much of an influence people like her had on the nation.
Wollstonecraft truely had some remarkable points that she brought forward that, to me, ended all disagreements on the spot. One such point that she brought up had to do with the difference between soldiers of war and women, which according to her, wasn't very significant. She explained how "military men, who are, like [women], sent into the world before their minds have been stored with knowledge or fortified by principles." In fact, Wollstonecraft claims, "All the difference that I can discern, arises from the superior advantage of liberty, which enables the former to see more of life." Wollstonecraft was able to point out specific men who were still ranked above women in superiority and distinction even though they showed the same characteristics as the inferior sex. This alone showcases how strong her argument for equality of women was.
One of the recurring themes in her essay was the idea that men believed women were put on this earth to obey and please men while maintaining an innocent personality. In return, they claimed women would receive protection and stability. She even came up with the probable roots of the "prevailing opinion, that woman was created for man." Wollstonecraft reminded readers of Moses's story of Eve being one of Adam's ribs. Wollstonecraft clearly was not going to accept this stupid (sorry if this offends anyone) idea that women are here to serve men. She presented numerous theories and arguments against the usual beliefs of men. In my eyes, her thoughts make the ideas opposite of hers seem ridiculous, immature, childless, and foolish. Then again, I am probably just a tad bit biased considering that I, myself, am a female.
The last thing I would like to address was another idea that Wollstonecraft repeated throughout the article. She consistently pointed out that women just needed to be given a chance. If women were given a chance to strengthen virtues and characteristics, one could determine whether women were really meant to be inferior to men. We could then see where women would fall on the scale of intelligence. I liked this because obviously it has worked throughout the years. I would have to say that women have been given more chances and have received better equality compared to back then.
Overall, there were definitely some parts of this long essay that probably went right over my head, even when I tried to re-read paragraphs to enhance my understandings. I found that as I read on, I understood and liked more and more of what I read. I actually enjoyed this article. Even though it was difficult at times to get through, I found that I didn't exactly want to stop reading. I wanted to finish, so I could figure out where she would end her argument. When she did end her argument, I was generally pleased with what I had read. I feel as if I now have a better understandment towards what women had to do to achieve equality. I would even go as far to say that my being able to understand this is all thanks to people like Mary Wollstonecraft.
Wollstonecraft truely had some remarkable points that she brought forward that, to me, ended all disagreements on the spot. One such point that she brought up had to do with the difference between soldiers of war and women, which according to her, wasn't very significant. She explained how "military men, who are, like [women], sent into the world before their minds have been stored with knowledge or fortified by principles." In fact, Wollstonecraft claims, "All the difference that I can discern, arises from the superior advantage of liberty, which enables the former to see more of life." Wollstonecraft was able to point out specific men who were still ranked above women in superiority and distinction even though they showed the same characteristics as the inferior sex. This alone showcases how strong her argument for equality of women was.
One of the recurring themes in her essay was the idea that men believed women were put on this earth to obey and please men while maintaining an innocent personality. In return, they claimed women would receive protection and stability. She even came up with the probable roots of the "prevailing opinion, that woman was created for man." Wollstonecraft reminded readers of Moses's story of Eve being one of Adam's ribs. Wollstonecraft clearly was not going to accept this stupid (sorry if this offends anyone) idea that women are here to serve men. She presented numerous theories and arguments against the usual beliefs of men. In my eyes, her thoughts make the ideas opposite of hers seem ridiculous, immature, childless, and foolish. Then again, I am probably just a tad bit biased considering that I, myself, am a female.
The last thing I would like to address was another idea that Wollstonecraft repeated throughout the article. She consistently pointed out that women just needed to be given a chance. If women were given a chance to strengthen virtues and characteristics, one could determine whether women were really meant to be inferior to men. We could then see where women would fall on the scale of intelligence. I liked this because obviously it has worked throughout the years. I would have to say that women have been given more chances and have received better equality compared to back then.
Overall, there were definitely some parts of this long essay that probably went right over my head, even when I tried to re-read paragraphs to enhance my understandings. I found that as I read on, I understood and liked more and more of what I read. I actually enjoyed this article. Even though it was difficult at times to get through, I found that I didn't exactly want to stop reading. I wanted to finish, so I could figure out where she would end her argument. When she did end her argument, I was generally pleased with what I had read. I feel as if I now have a better understandment towards what women had to do to achieve equality. I would even go as far to say that my being able to understand this is all thanks to people like Mary Wollstonecraft.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Technology and Brains
After reading "Is Google Making Us Stupid?," I had mixed feelings about technology, human brains, and even the way I learn myself. Nicholas Carr did an excellent job of summing up exactly what most people either don't want to admit or are too foolish to admit. Personally, I absolutely loved Carr's writing style, word choice, metaphors, etc. One line that really stuck out to me in that sense was "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." I just really thought that Carr managed to explain his thoughts with the perfect words, and he definitely got the point that he was trying to make across to his readers. By reading this article, one could clearly realize how much technology affects everyday life, our brains, the way we think and do things, and so much more.
As much as I hate to admit it, I had to agree with basically everything Carr tried to etch into my brain. I couldn't help but realize that technology has affected the way that I read, learn, research, etc. When I really thought about it, my researching basically consists of using the internet. The reason I do this is because I want all of the information that I need in the shortest and most efficient amount of time. The only time in which I use something else is when teachers require more than one type of source. Just as Carr wrote about, I switch from one website as I skim through paragraphs and paragraphs of information. Even then, I rarely return to most of those websites. I also find myself catching up on top news stories by reading the articles that pop up on Yahoo! news that manage to capture my attention. The realization of all of this has really made me wish that technology didn't play such a big role in my life.
I do think, however, that technology is not as big in my life compared to a lot of my peers. I do not use Facebook very often. I don't text every minute of the day. Surprisingly, one of my favorite things to do is to sit down and read a nice long book. I find that I like to read books for fun; however, I don't completely enjoy using books for researching. Because of this, I like to believe that my brain still has the ability to stay focused; however, I feel as if I have trouble making the deep connections that are sometimes required in class.
Overall, this is all very frustrating to me. I am completely unsure of whether or not my brain is changing due to technology. I feel as if it is in some ways, but at the same time, my brain is not yet completely taken over by technology. I do not completely look forward to the day that information goes directly to our brains or when they start to create artificial brains. I think that technology is extremely important to us in some ways, but in others, we need to slow down a little and actually do the work to learn. Shouldn't we worry a little more about keeping our brains working well, rather than creating technology to do everything for us? In a way, this is kind of embarassing to me. I think about how in the past, people got through life using their real knowledge, and now, we rely almost solely on technology. I want to use my own intelligence to live life, not the artificial kind.
As much as I hate to admit it, I had to agree with basically everything Carr tried to etch into my brain. I couldn't help but realize that technology has affected the way that I read, learn, research, etc. When I really thought about it, my researching basically consists of using the internet. The reason I do this is because I want all of the information that I need in the shortest and most efficient amount of time. The only time in which I use something else is when teachers require more than one type of source. Just as Carr wrote about, I switch from one website as I skim through paragraphs and paragraphs of information. Even then, I rarely return to most of those websites. I also find myself catching up on top news stories by reading the articles that pop up on Yahoo! news that manage to capture my attention. The realization of all of this has really made me wish that technology didn't play such a big role in my life.
I do think, however, that technology is not as big in my life compared to a lot of my peers. I do not use Facebook very often. I don't text every minute of the day. Surprisingly, one of my favorite things to do is to sit down and read a nice long book. I find that I like to read books for fun; however, I don't completely enjoy using books for researching. Because of this, I like to believe that my brain still has the ability to stay focused; however, I feel as if I have trouble making the deep connections that are sometimes required in class.
Overall, this is all very frustrating to me. I am completely unsure of whether or not my brain is changing due to technology. I feel as if it is in some ways, but at the same time, my brain is not yet completely taken over by technology. I do not completely look forward to the day that information goes directly to our brains or when they start to create artificial brains. I think that technology is extremely important to us in some ways, but in others, we need to slow down a little and actually do the work to learn. Shouldn't we worry a little more about keeping our brains working well, rather than creating technology to do everything for us? In a way, this is kind of embarassing to me. I think about how in the past, people got through life using their real knowledge, and now, we rely almost solely on technology. I want to use my own intelligence to live life, not the artificial kind.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Skunk Dreams
To be truthful, I had no idea where this story was going as I started reading it. At first it seemed as if it were just random stories about skunks, trees, the country, and whatever else the author felt like talking about. Then...it clicked. Maybe I should have figured it out sooner than I did, but my "aha moment" was when the author repeated the paragraph about the fence and trees from the beginning. I felt stupid at first, but I realized that all along she was leading up to the idea that she dreamed about something before it happened. Then she went even further to talk about how the dream, fence, etc. were just obstacles to her desires. Once she got past those obstacles, there were more obstacles. At the end of the story, Louise Erdrich looped back to the beginning by addressing the idea of skunks. She talked about how skunks have the most security in living, and perhaps this is even because they are allowed to be arrogant while also living fearlessly. This seemingly not-going-anywhere story actually made a lot of sense by the end.
In the beginning, Erdrich said, "I understand that I should be self-proud, content to gee-whiz at the fact that I am the world's only mechanism that can admire itself." Then later Erdrich went on to say, "We should take comfort from the skunk, an arrogant creature so pleased with its own devices that it never runs from harm, just turns its back in total confidence." I felt like the first statement was a naive statement from the person she was before. The second statement seemed to me as if she realized that skunks could also admire themselves. Skunks are so confident in themselves, and their own devices, that they don't have to worry about danger much. Also, I feel as if she was considering the idea that skunks don't really have obstacles at all. They don't really have a problem with going anywhere or staying alive. So, I guess the question that this essay left me was...do skunks have obstacles? If they don't, do they need to dream? I ask that second question because Erdrich said early that dreams were obstacle-less ways of living. I don't know if this makes sense at all, but maybe skunks don't have to dream because they already live without obstacles?????
Finally, I just wanted to say that overall I really enjoyed this story/essay. I loved the descriptions, metaphors, similes, etc. that the author chose to use. I really liked her comparisons and choice of wording. Also, this essay left my mind thinking non-stop about everything she talked about. My thoughts became confused and unsure of whether or not what I was thinking was even a purpose of her even writing the essay. Some of my thoughts, as you can probably tell from above, were extremely hard for me to put into words, but they make sense in my own head. Hopefully, I haven't completely confused whoever is reading this because it sure confuses me sometimes when I read it over.
In the beginning, Erdrich said, "I understand that I should be self-proud, content to gee-whiz at the fact that I am the world's only mechanism that can admire itself." Then later Erdrich went on to say, "We should take comfort from the skunk, an arrogant creature so pleased with its own devices that it never runs from harm, just turns its back in total confidence." I felt like the first statement was a naive statement from the person she was before. The second statement seemed to me as if she realized that skunks could also admire themselves. Skunks are so confident in themselves, and their own devices, that they don't have to worry about danger much. Also, I feel as if she was considering the idea that skunks don't really have obstacles at all. They don't really have a problem with going anywhere or staying alive. So, I guess the question that this essay left me was...do skunks have obstacles? If they don't, do they need to dream? I ask that second question because Erdrich said early that dreams were obstacle-less ways of living. I don't know if this makes sense at all, but maybe skunks don't have to dream because they already live without obstacles?????
Finally, I just wanted to say that overall I really enjoyed this story/essay. I loved the descriptions, metaphors, similes, etc. that the author chose to use. I really liked her comparisons and choice of wording. Also, this essay left my mind thinking non-stop about everything she talked about. My thoughts became confused and unsure of whether or not what I was thinking was even a purpose of her even writing the essay. Some of my thoughts, as you can probably tell from above, were extremely hard for me to put into words, but they make sense in my own head. Hopefully, I haven't completely confused whoever is reading this because it sure confuses me sometimes when I read it over.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Updike and Sontag
After reading John Updike's essay, I found myself in a unexpected mood. Even though I had heard it all before, had seen the unforgettable images on that terrible day, and had remembered most of what he described, his recollection of September 11, 2001 left me heavyhearted and gloomy all over again. Maybe it was his impeccable word choice and descriptions or his beliefs that made me think twice about why war is even an issue, but Updike clearly wrote from his heart. One of my favorite passages from this essay was "Determined men who have transposed their own lives to a martyr's afterlife can still inflict an amount of destruction that defies belief. War is conducted with a fury that requires abstraction...we have only the mundane duties of survivors--to pick up the pieces, to bury the dead, to take more precautions, to go on living." In my eyes, this passage itself summed up the effects of war and conflicts. Updike did an awesome job of not only telling but also showing how America was harmed and changed forever. Even better, Updike was able to end his essay with a pinch of happiness as he declared that Americans get through it all.
Now, once I read Susan Sontag's essay, I would have to say that my mood changed quite radically. I would best categorize it as an angry but calm one. For lack of a better word because my brain isn't quite functioning, I re-realized quite a few things as I worked my way towards the end of her essay. America isn't perfect, humans aren't perfect, and governments are definitely not perfect. I completely agreed with Sontag in the sense that bombings done by any country are wrong, even the U.S. I have to admit though, I was completely and utterly offended when Sontag said, "...whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." Why was this so offensive to me? Well, in my eyes because they did something so terrible, they are cowards. The brave people are the ones who learn to live with their enemies and don't kill innocent people. I was also offended because to me it felt like Sontag was saying American's deserved what we got because our government isn't perfect and we can be so much better. Obviously we can potentially be more than strong, but we don't need to have a terrorist attack to prove this.
Now, once I read Susan Sontag's essay, I would have to say that my mood changed quite radically. I would best categorize it as an angry but calm one. For lack of a better word because my brain isn't quite functioning, I re-realized quite a few things as I worked my way towards the end of her essay. America isn't perfect, humans aren't perfect, and governments are definitely not perfect. I completely agreed with Sontag in the sense that bombings done by any country are wrong, even the U.S. I have to admit though, I was completely and utterly offended when Sontag said, "...whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." Why was this so offensive to me? Well, in my eyes because they did something so terrible, they are cowards. The brave people are the ones who learn to live with their enemies and don't kill innocent people. I was also offended because to me it felt like Sontag was saying American's deserved what we got because our government isn't perfect and we can be so much better. Obviously we can potentially be more than strong, but we don't need to have a terrorist attack to prove this.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
All About Me
I love doing a variety of things; however, I rarely have time to partake in them as much as I want to. I love to play soccer, and I really don't care which position I play because soccer is soccer, and everything is fun. I also play basketball, but I have to admit...soccer is much more fun. Along with soccer and basketball, I like playing pretty much every other sport for fun; I just don't have the time to play them. Other than sports, I love playing the piano and listening to music. For the majority of time, I listen to country music (I love it and couldn't live without it), but I am open to any other type of music as well. I just love music in general. In addition to all of this, I absolutely love to read (I would be a professional reader if I could). My favorite authors are Stephen King and Jodi Picoult, so I like a variety of genres considering that those two authors are complete opposites. I also liked a lot of the works that I read in College Lit. last year, like Metamorphosis, Persepolis, etc. I do a lot of other things too, but fortunately for you, I can't think of anything right now.
As of right now, I have my sights set on going to Medical School (after a four-year college, obviously), but I am not positive on what I want to do. I kind of want to be an oncologist (cancer doctor), but I also want to work with kids, so I figure that means I should be a pediatric oncologist.
I don't really know what else to say, but here are some random facts: I love speaking Spanish, eating cookie dough ice cream, doing math or science, hanging with friends, and of course, sleeping. I think that's it. Adiós!
As of right now, I have my sights set on going to Medical School (after a four-year college, obviously), but I am not positive on what I want to do. I kind of want to be an oncologist (cancer doctor), but I also want to work with kids, so I figure that means I should be a pediatric oncologist.
I don't really know what else to say, but here are some random facts: I love speaking Spanish, eating cookie dough ice cream, doing math or science, hanging with friends, and of course, sleeping. I think that's it. Adiós!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)