Honors

Honors to me this semester was good. It really challenged my views and encouraged those views i had not yet developed. Honors was a different classroom experience for me and it taught me a lot not just about english but about issues in life.

PS I commented on Jamne's Post

Honors applies to life

I know this is a little late, I'm so sorry!

I can't say how much I've appreciated Honors this semester.  It's so much fun having a true open forum for ideas, where you can actually throw a figurative (and literal) bone of contention into the midst of the room, and discuss hard subjects.  While some of our reading has been incredibly difficult, it's been so much fun to see people ask questions because they want to know answers, not just to share their opinion, and to watch all of us emerge from lectures on Plato's circular reasoning on justice with headaches, but be so interested we have to continue his argument outside of the classroom.  Honors has taken the ancient works of literature and made them applicable.  We've been living the dialogues of Plato, making allegorical connections with Plato, and fighting for the rights of Orestes before the gods.  No where else could we have this opportunity, and I truly appreciate it.
PS. commented on Emily LaForce's post :)

The Censorship of Poesy

So, I am yet again sitting up writing a paper that will probably take me the majority of the night to finish. I had forgotten I had to blog until I was looking for something to help me procrastinate with, and then i remembered, with 15 minutes to spare. Over the semester, as I've contemplated what I was going to write the final paper on, my mind kept coming back to the subject I finally settled on, Proving Plato Wants to Banish the Poets from the City. At first, I was going to write the paper completely tongue-in-cheek. And up until about 2 o'clock in the morning that was the direction the paper was headed. Then I really started to get into what I was doing, which was removing from The Iliad what Plato wanted to censor. And I realized that there really would be no poetry left and the poets would not be allowed in the city. And it made me wonder what it would be like to not have poetry in the world. Granted, I'm not a huge poetry fan, but I do appreciate it. And besides, when Plato is talking about the poets and poetry, he's really talking about all literature. Life without literature would not be a life I would want to live! I don't know how I could handle not having literature in my life! And now, as I sit here, working on a paper for a Literature class, I'm beginning to wonder what would happen if the works I am focusing on were censored the same way Plato wanted to censor them. Then I remember that I actually need to write my paper, so I try not to let it distract me.
Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,
May everyone have a wonderful Finals week and a Merry Christmas!!
Meghan Johnston!
PS - I commented on Emily's blog
PPS - 2 minutes to spare! :)

Salt of the Earth.

What does it mean to be the salt of the Earth? My church history is a repetitious cycle of bible stories, parables, and anecdotes. I remember being taught to be the "salt of the Earth" as it says in Matthew 5:13-16. I have come to the conclusion that this passage must be talking about the lukewarm Christian. It is a warning to not let one's relationship with Christ lose its flame. Salt, once it loses its saltiness can not be restored to its original taste. At this point, salt is completely useless. Matthew 25:30 says,  "Worthless servants will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." What a horrible way to spend eternity! This is why we are encouraged to be salty. 

PS i commented on Jasmine's post.

Destiny and a whole lot of digging...

Throughout the last couple of years of my life, I feel that God has been revealing to me that his plan from the very beginning was to restore creation its original purpose. God wants to make us into what he destined us to be from the very beginning of time, before sin or anything separated us from him. I found this last lecture to be a satisfying ending to a wonderful semester in our great "quest for truth". Knowing that God won't leave his people where they are but takes them with Him on the journey is one of the most comforting things. The most comforting thing I know at this point in time is that I'll get to rest this weekend from my frantic all nighter. I'm discovering that honors papers can really take it out of you but the results are so worth it. I'm so grateful that I dug into my topic and found answers. This is the same with life. If you stay up until 4:30 in the morning, you are bound to find some answers. Here's to some more mind opening truths! (P.S. Commented on Amanda)

Momma knows best

       As I began to register for classes for my first collegiate semester, my mother told me to look into the honors program. She of course, had been stalking the UM website to see where all of her money was going to be going, and had stumbled across an article about how the honors program allowed students to make more personal connections with their professors. I had looked into honors programs at other schools, but they were based around your degree field; not through the english department. I already had my required english credits, so I didn't really see the point in retaking four classes that I had already passed; however, my mother had other plans for me.
      Looking back on this semester, honors really is my favorite class, and I am extremely glad that I chose to take the course. It not only taught me a different way to read literature, but it also taught me to always be searching. To search for truth, to search for new opinions and ideas, and to search out the unknown, and I look forward to continuing this search.

p.s.- I commented on Amanda Gaster's blog

Conversations at the Honors Project

I had a really wonderful conversation with Will Drake at the honors project. We talked about what honors means to us, and what honors has taught us.
The texts that we've come in contact with have challenged us, stretched us and changed us. But one of the best feelings I have experienced is when my view hasn't changed. When I can read Philo, when I can take hermeneutics and when I read Desmond Tutu, and when I can examine the argument thoroughly. Then, when I realize what I believe is still the same, that is when I know I can trust it. It is wonderful to know that the conversion you experienced when you were 14, or 4, is still the same truth that you believe after you learn Greek or read new interpretations of the texts. To be faced with a thousand inherent contradictions and find that I still believe the bible is true and that a God who is all knowing is capable of making himself known- this is what it means to have faith. To listen with grace and discernment and love to every argument, and yet to know at the end of the day that the Word of the Lord endures forever. We can rest in this in our Spirits, while searching out truth with our minds.

To find every obstacle, to hit every roadblock headfirst, and to know that God is more logical and more loving than I could even imagine. 

Pursuing Perfection

I love when Honors connects with real life. I've been reading a lot of Paul's letters recently and I have really enjoyed discussing him in class, even though it (sadly) came at the end of the semester after our papers. Talking about the Sermon on the Mount and the Didache today also connected some dots... sophomores may remember Bonhoeffer from last semester (freshmen- look forward to him :))... he also talked about the Sermon on the Mount. With hundreds of years between the writing of the Didache and The Cost of Discipleship, there must have been something in this idea of righteousness and perfection from God rather than the self, since both address the issue. Today in class we defined "perfect" in the Greek as whole, complete, true to yourself and your purpose. Bonhoeffer says, "Our task is simply to keep on following, looking only to our Leader who goes on before, taking no notice of ourselves or what we are doing. We must be unaware of our own righteousness, and see it only in so far as we look into Jesus; then it will seem not extraordinary, but quite ordinary and natural. Thus we hide the visible from ourselves in obedience to the word of Jesus." Sometimes I know I get caught up in trying to make everything work out just so... yeah I'm a perfectionist. But how freeing this is from the Didache and Bonhoeffer- from Christ comes our perfection. Our righteousness is in Him, so we can stop striving and look to him. Pursuing Him results in a pursuit of righteousness and perfection, so he is sanctifying us as we go. So, maybe you are not able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, maybe you're overwhelmed with papers and finals and life.... keep running the race and do the best you can- you aren't a failure; you're being made perfect in the process.
I have been so blessed by journeying with you all this semester. Seeking truth can be painful, but it's so worth it. See you next semester, friends! Much love!

commented on Lauren's "The Search"

The Search.

I did not think that I would ever be able to experience Honors at Mobile because I transferred in as a junior. I was so jealous after hearing everyone talk about the class and the professors and the crazy, yet amazing things they did. Then there was a mix up with my credits and Dr. Schuler worked out a way for me to be in Honors this fall.

I am thankful that I am now a part of Honors family at the University of Mobile. This class has stretched my mind and my heart to think in ways that I have never before thought. I have been challenged by the questions posed in the texts and in the classroom. I have built relationships with people that I will always cherish. But the most important lesson I have learned is to seek out the truth in everything you do. Seek the truth in the text, in the paper, in the relationship, in the vocation; seek the truth every day. This is not an easy task because sometimes seeking out the truth means confronting beliefs that have previously never been questioned, but the journey is worth every confrontation.

p.s. I commented on Jasmine's post.

Heart Support

Through comparing and contrasting the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes, the purpose of life has become less about morality and more about attitude.  Morality is mostly associated with "good and bad" or "right and wrong" choices in life.  While morality is important to God, your heart is of much greater value.  True morality begins as an attitude within the heart; furthermore, an individual is not considered to be moral on the basis of a few "good" choices.  Consequently, in order to "be good" or "do good," an individual must have an absolute source of "good."  Since God is good, moral behavior flows from Him alone.  Morality is very similar to a lifestyle; therefore, living a moral life is the fruitful results of a correct attitude.  God outlined this attitude through the Ten Commandments in order to ensure the Israelites a joy-filled, fruitful life, but they replaced the true meaning of the Law with a moral basis for living.  Thus, Jesus presented the Beatitudes in order to restore the Law to its proper place among men.

Is Jesus really fufilling the laws or changing the way they are set up?

In Matthew 5-7 Jesus is fulfilling the laws. When you really read what he is saying, you begin to see that the laws are almost becoming more strict. Instead of adultery just being when you have relations while married, it is just simply looking at another woman. He says that it is no longer an eye for an eye, but if someone strikes one cheek you must turn to the other side. When he is talking about doing good works, it is not only doing good works but doing them in secret. Jesus says"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that only your father in heaven may know." Basically everything the people thought was right was changed. Because Jesus was fufilling the law, they were made stricter and had more rules to them My favorite part of these verses is when he says to be the salt and the light and that we are a city on a hill and we must shine our light for all to see. It is just so powerful that Jesus is declaring this to a crowd of people, it is not in a parable but just straight up go shine your light which to me is awesome.

Desire is the common tripping Stone

In Philo, i thought it was interesting the way he described desire as this insatiable act. Philo's virtue was for desire was temperance. As human beings we can never be truly satisfied and we are always looking for situations that might fill that void that is in ourselves. When we come to God, He fills that void but we often forget because desire creeps in like a virus that never leaves. Desire is like a wildfire sometimes cannot be controlled and we have to practice at it to get rid of all those bad desires in our life. It makes me question why God would design humans to be prone to desires? He did give us free will but it feels like he basically gave us sin on a platter and told us not to eat of it.

PS i commented on reason vs revelation

Why does He do it?

“A union of the three takes place, through God extending the power, which proceeds from himself through the spirit, which is the middle term, as far as the subject. Why does he do this, except that we may thus derive a proper notion of him?”

 I found this to be a very interesting statement when talking about how God “breathed” life into man. To ask “why does he do this” is honestly to ask why we even exist as humans. As non-honors as it may seem, this actually reminded me of a C.S. Lewis quote I saw on twitter. He said “Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake.” Talk about a reality check for those of us who thought we were any kind of important. Still, when I read this passage of Philo, what Lewis said makes a lot more sense. What other reason could God possibly justify creating us for other than to glorify Him in everything we do. In a sense, God would be robbing us of potential joy if he gave us anything else to pursue because He truly is the only eternally worthwhile pursuit. He has a righteous duty to himself to glorify himself. And this very act is done by that breath. He goes on to say that “human intellect would not have dared to mount up to such a height as to lay claim to the nature of God, if God himself had not drawn it up to himself.” This concept truly continues to blow my mind over and over, that God creating us and allowing us to suffer the messes of this world is by deepest nature an act of grace. It is so because in the midst of all the darkness, God grants us the ability to pursue Him, to be drawn to him as the only perfectly worthwhile pursuit.

P.S. I commented on Michelle's

P.P.S. I tried to post this last night, but the wifi in the hotel stopped working all last night for some reason. I was able to comment using my phone, but it wouldn't let me create a new post. Sorry if this doesn't count, but honest to goodness I had it all ready in plenty of time. The internet just wouldn't cooperate.

Symbolism of the wild.

(2) And to those who raise the question why the lawgiver gave his laws not in cities but in the deep desert, we must say, in the first place, that the generality of cities are full of unspeakable evils, and of acts of audacious impiety towards the Deity, and of injustice on the part of the citizens to one another; (3) for there is nothing which is wholly free from alloy, what is spurious getting the better of what is genuine, and what is plausible of what is true; which things in their nature are false, but which suggest plausible imaginations to the engendering of deceit in cities; (4) from whence also that most designing of all things, namely pride, is implanted, which some persons admire and worship, dignifying and making much of vain opinions, with golden crowns and purple robes, and numbers of servants and chariots, on which those men who are looked upon as fortunate and happy are borne aloft, sometimes harnessing mules or horses to their chariots, and sometimes even men, who bear their burdens on their necks, through the excess of the insolence of their masters, weighed down in soul even before they faint in body.

We read this passage today in class and did a little bit of discussion, and it reminded me of a story I read in the 11th grade. I tried for a while to find it, and finally discovered what I was looking for: Nathaniel Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown. (Great read. I 100% suggest it.) 

So What I get out of this passage from Philo is that the city is a headquarter of sin. It is where the wicked reside. However, In Young Goodman Brown, it brings up a different opinion. It says, 

"With this excellent resolve for the future, Goodman Brown felt himself justified in making more haste on his present evil purpose. He had taken a dreary road, darkened by all the gloomiest trees of the forest, which barely stood aside to let the narrow path creep through, and closed immediately behind. It was all as lonely as could be; and there is this peculiarity in such a solitude, that the traveler knows not who may be concealed by the innumerable trunks and the thick boughs overhead; so that, with lonely footsteps, he may yet be passing through an unseen multitude.

"There may be a devilish Indian behind every tree," said Goodman Brown to himself; and he glanced fearfully behind him, as he added, "What if the devil himself should be at my very elbow!"

His head being turned back, he passed a crook of the road, and looking forward again, beheld the figure of a man, in grave and decent attire, seated at the foot of an old tree. He arose, at Goodman Brown's approach, and walked onward, side by side with him."

In this story, it seems that the safe haven is in the city. This is where security lies. This is where community lies. However, the wilderness of the forest is where evil lies. The forest is the hiding place for evil because it conceals sin. Goodman Brown wants to go into the forest because the forest is open to sin. He is wanting to sin and the wilderness hides his actions. Once there, he meets a man who is truly the Devil, and later everyone in the community who also is going to the woods for evil, and those in the community who were pious turned out to be witches and wizards who wanted to sin rather to speak the name of God. 

Where I'm going with this blog is that these two have contrasting views of the wilderness. Philo's wilderness is a safe haven from the wickedness of the city, but  Hawthorne's wilderness is a place to act in wickedness to leave from the safe haven of the city.

Aeneas and the Ten Commandments

One thing that struck me in class today was Dr. Schuler's reference to Aeneas carrying his father and the household gods to safety. It made me think more about Philo's division of the Ten Commandments into two groups of five. The first four commandments seem at first to be dealing with a different topic than the fifth does. But Philo explained that the way we treat authority cannot be divided from our treatment of God. Philo said that we may think that we serve God even when we do not honor our parents, but if we do not honor our parents, we are not honoring God. This is actually very reasonable, because by not honoring our parents we are breaking God's law. Philo also seemed to point out that the way we treat our parents influences the way we treat God. If we do not honor our earthly fathers, who gave us life, we probably will not honor our heavenly Father, who gave us AND our fathers life.

At this point, you may be wondering why I brought up Aeneas in this post. I started thinking about this incident after Dr. Schuler mentioned it during the discussion. I realized that if Aeneas had left his father, he would have also left the household gods that his father was carrying. He would have dishonorably left both his father and the gods to ruin. Also, this chain of Aeneas holding his father, who was holding the gods, created a hierarchy for the family. The gods were above the father, and the father was above the son. I may have drawn implications out too far, but this really grabbed my attention.

P.S. I commented on Michelle Nellsch's post.

reason vs revelation

Today in class I was very interested when we discussed reason and revelation. More precisely we discussed Athens and Jerusalem and wnat each of them symbolised. How is reason accurate without revelation. They are coexisting beings that support each other and are flawed when viewed separately. Without revelation, reason is chaotic and destructive toward all who posses it. An example of this is morals, without the revelation of what is right or wrong there is not a standard to which we must be held to. That quickly escalates into chaos, destruction, and pain. Also, revelation without reason is pointless. Reason helps us to interpret scripture and determine truths. Without reason, revelation is only words without a clear and consise meaning. Therefore they are misread and mis interpreted, leading to secular cults and wrong ideas about the scripture. Now while Philo has some things that i do not agree with, I believe he is right when he used reason and revelation as partners instead of enemies.

Why fight Destiny?

In the Aeneid, Juno knows that people from Troy will bring the end to her beloved city, Carthage. However, she delays Aeneus trips and tries to mess him up all the way even though she knows that Carthage is destined to fall. The question is why fight the inevitable. But why fight? Towards the end, Juno knows that her city is going to fall and enjoys Aeneus's pain to help her deal with hers. As humans, we ourselves try to fight the inevitable and it is a clear parallel between Juno and humans in the sense that everyone wants to go down fighting. Most humans are vengeful when it comes to the people they love and in my opinion Juno may not be in the right but she is rebelling against destiny which is hopeless but admirable. Destiny may be against us but the last thing that humans lose is hope.

PS i commented on "the affair."

From Spirit come the races of man and beast...

'From Spirit come the races of man and beast,
The life of birds, odd creatures the deep sea
Contains beneath her sparkling surfaces,
And fiery energy from a heavenly source
Belongs to the generative seeds of these,
So far as they are not poisoned or clogged
By mortal bodies, their free essence dimmed
By earthiness and deathliness of flesh.'

This is such a fascinating passage to me, for in this view 'the Spirit' is somewhat pantheistic in that is in all things and connects all things; it is also what every being returns to in death. This relates interestingly to Plato, for according to him, the spiritual is the actual reality. So for both, the physical is not permanent, but a blocking or poisoning of the essence of mankind. Once again, we see the potential window of influence Plato's thought had on Virgil. This belief that there is no need to fear death because of the resulting peace has certainly influenced our christian thought today.

Losing the fight.

I am in love with the Anead.

soldiers,
brave as you are to no end, if you crave
to face the last fight with me, and no doubt of it,
how matters stand for us each no one can see.
The gods who by this kingdom stood are gone,
Gone from the shrines and altars. You defend
a city lost in flames.come, let us die,
we'll make a rush into the thick of it.
The conqured have one safety: hope for none.

One of the most beautiful things about this story, to me, is the portrayal of war. I love it. I don't even know what to say about it other than it's brilliant. I think there's something so noble about fighting when the 'gods have departed'. Maybe because it seems like something our culture has lost. I mean we want to win- always. it's hard to comprehend fighting for the sake of something you know is lost. And yet I think it's kind of beautiful. It's like fighting for something bigger than yourself. It's a spiritual redemption of a physical fall.

The Affair

The affair of Dido and Aeneas is a curious one. It is not to different from modern-day relationships. As humans, we so many times give into our lustful nature, and that is exactly what Dido and Aeneas did. We see at the end of book four how that turned out for them. Aeneas leaves, and Dido is so heart broken over his departure she kills herself. What good does adultery provide? None. It brings deceit and heart break into life. In Song of Solomon, the beloved says, "Oh daughters of Israel, I charge you: Do not awaken love until it so pleases." She says this in three different places (2:7, 3:5, and 8:4). I presume that if she feels the need to say this on so many different occasions it's probably something we should live by. I believe their behavior was uncalled for, and they see this through the consequences of their actions. 

PS. I commented on Michelle's "The Underworld"

Aeneas as a Leader

One of the qualities that I admire the most in Aeneas is his leadership. Many great leaders love their men and are extremely tactful in battle. The difference that sets Aeneas apart from other great leaders is his compassion. This can be argued in the case of his relationship with Dido, but with his men there is no doubt. He is deeply affected when he looses one of his men. He mourns the most for Misenus when they find his body. If Aeneas asks his men to do something he is right beside them working just as hard to show them he is not just going to command them to do something and then not do it himself. Many leaders can take this power to the extreme and that is when they become tyrants. Aeneas does not want to hold his power over his men as a threat. Through Aeneas' compassion and actions, I believe he shows the best qualities of a leader.

P.S.- I commented on Katelyn Ewing's post.

Oh Dido

    Tonight I want to write about Dido.  This is the character that broke my heart, I totally wanted to take her side. She, seems, like a innocent victim.   Queen Dido is a the type of woman I would like to be, until at least an Aeneid comes into the picture.  She is well-rounded Roman woman, I mean Phoenician.  She is kind, compassionate, gracious to strangers, looks out for the good of her people. Her kingdom is happy place, busy and alive, constructing and growing, they are also up to date on current events, they serve the gods regularly.   She also has had hardships and misfortunes, so she can relate to Aeneis.  Clearly, this is a strong lady.
    Then the gods, as usual, have to go and mess with people. Dido for so long has only loved her deceased husband, but when Cupid comes, he makes her fall in love with Aeneas.  Her and Aeneas have an affair, which in her mind is a marriage. Aeneas is reminded of his mission, he leaves her.  Dido, heartbroken, falls into what is clearly a depression.  Her she has been robbed of her honor, her glory and her heart, all she gave fully to him.  Aeneas made her a tarnished woman, and now she not a fit queen.  She's left with the anger of previous suitors, an unfinished wall to protect her people, and a broken spirit.  How could one not fall into a depression?
    Killing herself was not something that impressed me, after Aeneas left, she couldn't shake him. Life was no longer worth living, and she forgot about her people, her kingdom and her sister.
   Dido, however, taught me a lesson. People can be incredible leaders, but by putting their trust in man, their lives will come to ruin. Also that the consequences of your decisions never affect solely yourself.

P.S. commented on Sam's post

Bitter Much?

One of the most interesting things that I came across in the Aeneid was the fact that Juno continued to pursue revenge on Aeneas regardless of the fact that he was fated to prevail in the end. I hate to keep ranting on the same subjects, but I could not help but getting almost frustrated at the tension between the Gods and different cosmic orders caused by their oh so human frailty. For the whole of the story up until her turnaround in book twelve, she continues to seek spiteful revenge simply because Paris had chosen Venus as the more beautiful of the two and the prophecy concerning the Romans and Carthage.   I understand that when Juno finally yields in the end and simply asks that the Latin name and language be kept,  she is, in a sense, bringing about the resolution of the story by ceasing to continue being the primary antagonist against Aeneas. My problem still remains though, that I just can't respect a god harboring that bitter a grudge against a mortal for those reasons. Although these epic tales all make great stories, I guess I'll just never be able to come to terms with their gods being so pitifully human.

PS I commented on Katelyn Ewing's

Infants in the Underworld

I'm not sure that this is a normal response, and I don't know if this detail of the underworld is really even important in the rest of the text, but in book VI around line 575 those who passes away as infants are mentioned, and I felt really bad for these children.  The first thing I noticed was the sound of the infants' wailing could be heard.  Therefore, those who died in infancy were probably destined to exist in the underworld as infants, both physically and mentally; however, if this were not the case, they were forced to exist knowing of the life that they never had the opportunity to experience. Neither situation pleasant in my eyes.  They were deprived of the opportunity to ever learn and grow.  When I picture this scene, I imagine as the infant spirits crying alone without their mothers or any type of caregiver or nurturer.  Compared with the picture that I would assume most Christians hold about the afterlife of those who pass away in infancy, it seems to me to be a drastically different situation.

P.S. I commented on Molly Gray's "Changing the Names."

Poor Little Me

I had been feeling sorry for Dido. Her first husband was murdered by her brother; she was made to fall in love against her will, and the man she loved eventually left her. Dido faced some hard situations. But this was no excuse for some of her actions. Aeneas had to leave; neither one of them could disregard the will of the gods. But, out of selfish love, she demanded that Aeneas stay with her. When he insisted that he had to go, she insulted him. When it became evident that he wasn't coming back, she got her sister to unknowingly make preparations for suicide. The sister was forced to watch Dido kill herself. These are not loving actions. Dido did feel genuinely hurt, but some of her actions were just selfish.

I commented on emilylaforce's post.

The Importance of Burial

While reading past epics such as the Odyssey I never really understood why burial was extremely important until reading The Aeneid.  I realized that one of the reasons the soldiers would fight over the fallen bodies so they could have a proper burial was so they would receive honor, but I felt there was more to it.  When Aeneas makes his trip to the underworld he encounters the souls of the unburied. Sibyl informs Aeneas that the souls of the unburied are not allowed to cross the river into the underworld.  They have to wait until either their bones are buried in the ground or wait one hundred years on the banks of the river before they are allowed to cross.  Aeneas unfortunately encounters Palinurus( his helmsman who was pitched overboard and was killed by savages when he finally go to the shore of Italy) as one of the unburied souls and Palinurus begs Aeneas to "deliver him from his captivity."  I never really understood this part of the underworld until reading this.  If you knew that that is what would happen if you or a loved one wasn't buried you probably would almost fight to the death to give someone a proper burial. This would insure they would have a safe passage to the underworld and not have to wait another one hundred years.  Actually being in the underworld can seem bad enough and then having to wait even longer to enter would be devastating knowing that peace is just across a river.  Thankfully as Aeneas journey went on we were able to see a more pleasurable side to the underworld, which almost makes waiting even harder. Therefore, all the fighting over the bodies to give the people proper burials makes so much more sense because it is not only for their honor but also to gain easy passage to the underworld.

p.s. commented on Molly Gray's Changing the Names

The Underworld

The vision of the underworld portrayed in the Aeneid was far more in detail than that of the Odyssey. The structure and manner in which it was portrayed was exsqisite. The nomadic fields of Elysium where the Lethye takes away the pain of ones past life could represent the lost innocence renewed. Even Tartarus has a structure and rules. There is not the chaos that one comes to expect from death. That could be related to how heaven will be in the Christian's perspective. Our sins and pain of the life we led on Earth will be washed away. The courts in the Roman underworld could also reflect the two judgements fortold in Revelations. There are so many parallels that it is a bit suprising. In the end, death claims us all.  

Deathly Distractions

I find it so interesting how often humans make such simple-minded decisions.  The gods and goddesses entrusted Aeneas with the fate of the Trojans, and he always found a way to let his humanity distract him from his task.  The Aeneid is full of instances where humanity trumps divine revelation, and the irony exists in the fact that Christians do the exact same thing.  It is often assumed that a lack of faith provokes such responses; however, I prefer to believe that these responses are caused by allowing humanity to cloud spiritual discernment.  As a result, Aeneas found himself straying from his destined path throughout the journey to Italy.  By being distracted by his desires, Aeneas made poor decisions that produced deadly results.

Connection vs. Commitment

I found the thoughts on the differences between emotional connection and lasting commitment to someone, very intriguing today. After a quick comment was made about it, I found myself thinking about it throughout the rest of class.
In the case of Dido and Aeneas, we clearly know who felt which way about the other person. Dido was so in love with Aeneas that when she was rejected, she...took it hard, to say the least. Yet Aeneas was sort of "whatever" about that whole thing, the whole time.
What would it have taken Aeneas to get from just an emotion connection to a lasting commitment with Dido? Why didn't he try? Obviously he didn't know Dido was going to take rejection so hard or he probably would've have had anything to do with her. But even still, playing with someones heart is a dangerous business, regardless of whether or not you know the potential consequences of your actions.
So I guess what I kept asking myself was, why don't more people try to get passed the simple emotional connection with someone to a long-lasting commitment? I think if it was something that was more striven for, people would find it much more satisfying then just toying around with emotions.

P.s. I commented on emilylaforc'es "I want it now"

Changing the Names

I, like many others I am sure, was a little thrown off by the transition from the names of the Greek gods, to those of Rome while reading The Aeneid. I personally favor the Greek gods over the Roman, simply because I am more familiar with them, but I quickly realized that I should get more familiar with them- so I made myself a chart. However, while thinking about the change from one culture to another, I thought about the transition from the British culture to that of the US when Merriam Webster decided that he wanted to change the spelling of several words simply to create a further separation form the Old World to the New. The simple change from the word “colour” to “color” was a way to show the establishment of a new power house, just like changing the name of Zeus to Jove, and Hera to Juno was a way for Rome to show the transition of power from Greece.

p.s- I commented on Emily LaForce's "I want it now"

 

I want it now

Something that's prevalent in our society is action without foresight. People act on their emotions without thinking about the consequences. It's amazing to me how Virgil had such insight into human nature. People still use others and then cast them aside when they don't need them anymore or if duty calls them to somewhere else. Obviously, I'm referring to Dido and Aeneas and their love affair. Aeneas definitely acted selfishly because he knew he was fated to leave Carthage and establish a city and yet starts things up with Dido. Oh Cupid, why did you aim your bow at Dido? Although the gods caused Dido to fall in love with Aeneas, I think if Aeneas knew the consequences of his actions (Dido's subsequent suicide and dishonor) he wouldn't have done it. I think Virgil is trying to tell us to have foresight before we act. This could even be applied to college and studying so that when you end up a doctor you won't kill someone on accident cause you don't know what you're doing. also, think about the consequences of your relationships. Maybe your ex won't kill themselves cause you left them. (P.S. Commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's Infants in the underworld)

What you don't know won't hurt you...

Sometimes Truth has a very uncanny probability that it will cause more harm than good.  I would say that Truth is ultimately good because anything other than the truth is known as deception, and deceptive behaviors thrive on lies.  Therefore, that which is true is more coveted than that which is full of deceit.  In Oedipus' case, Truth promoted pain and regret; however, if Oedipus had known Truth sooner, then it is obvious that his fate could have been altered.  Truth was the ultimate source of good for Oedipus, but ignorance proved to be his ultimate demise.  Eventually, his fate became inevitable, and he chose to react to his interaction with Truth.  Although his destiny was stained by the blood of his father, Oedipus did fulfill his prophesied fate.  The bigger question is whether fate is an individual direction for life or a cluster of interchangeable paths that are selected by the decisions made in life.  If this is true, then perhaps Oedipus could have received knowledge in a more mature manner and spared himself the pain.

Doomed to Fate

Although it can't really be argued whether or not Oedipus killed the king, I couldn't help but feeling sorry for him at how his situation turned out. Every single person that knew about the prophesy except the one shepherd that had pity for Oedipus did all they could to avoid the fate that the prophesy spoke of. Yet no matter how hard Oedipus tried to do the right thing, he could not escape that fate. When I first read this I could not help but think that this is simply unfair, that no matter what one does  in life, nothing they do can change what will inevitably happen. Still, that got me thinking. Does it work the same way for us? I know that question opens up a massive debate on predestination and free will and the space time continuum and that sort of thing, so I won't even go down that road. But one thing that this story did remind me of was at the end of the republic when Socrates tells the story of Er. When everyone is gathered in the common place and picks their new fate, that is it. No changing, no trading, no doing nothing except intentionally or unintentionally seeing that fate through to the day you die. I couldn't help but laugh for a second that if this was true for Oedipus, then man did he mess that decision up. Either way, I am a firm believer that this sort of thing is exactly what we as humans are not intended nor able to understand. Whatever will happen will happen, but we still make the choices.

Fate

                Certainly a major theme throughout this semester in honors English has been the topic of fate.  In Homer's writing Achilles may choose his fate, but once he takes a path, it cannot be changed.  God sets people's fate in the Old Testimate, but does not always reveal how someone will reach His end goal.  Even in Republic, Plato says that some people made of gold and silver metals should be fated to rule, and that others must be ruled over.  The idea of people's lives being acted on by a higher power has always been a very popular topic and still is today.

                Now, in our reading about Oedipus we see even more having to do with fate.  In this story we come to understand just how powerful, binding, and inescapable fate truly is.  The king, queen, and Oedipus all try to find ways to escape the terrible prophesy told to them by the seer, but their efforts are all in vein.  However, the three did try as hard as they could to escape their fate.  The parents tie up the feet of their child and leave him to die, and Oedipus leaves who he believes to be his true parents and travels as far away from them as he possibly could.  No matter what they do, the prophesy comes true.

                My question is, there seems to be all sorts of different variations of fate.  Some can be changed or are less powerful, and then there are ones like the one in this story who can't change their fate no matter what they do.  So are there different types of fate, or just one level or variation.  I think there must be different intensities of fate, because how else come some people be able to change it and others not.  Could it be that it is just up to the writer?  I just think it's interesting how different stories about fate can be.

I commented on Emily LaForce's blog "The White Suite"

-Susan Berner

Outrunning Fate Part 2

So we have seen throughout all the Greek writings that fate is highly important.  No matter how hard you try, you cannot outrun fate.  Every characters attempt, especially in the Oedipus play, always fails without a doubt.  For example, in the Oedipus play every time a character attempted to change their fate it only pushed it more forward to actually happening.  I wonder if the characters stopped trying to actually change their fate and embraced it or were more careful about their fates maybe it might actually change on it's own.  I say this because if Oedipus's parents actually kept him knowing he was fated to kill his own parents and marry his mother then all that probably would not have happened.  If Oedipus grew up with his actual parents and then moved out when he got older because he realized his fate then he would not have wound up marrying his own mother.  He also may not have killed his parents, but that is just an assumption.  However, like I said in a previous post about outrunning fate that no matter how brave or important you are, if you are handed a bad fate you will fight as hard as possible to change it even if it means sending your own child away like Jocasta did or moving away from your supposed parents like Oedipus did.  

Also, if Jocasta's husband died and she knew her son was fated to marry his mother and Oedipus knowing he was fated to marry his mother why would they get remarried/married?  For Oedipus's sake he was unaware that his mother wasn't actually his biological mother, but I would have been a little bit more careful if I was given that sort of fate.  Jocasta attempted this by trying to keep Oedipus from finding out the truth but by that point it was already too late.  I guess it goes to show that humans are terrible at embracing their fate.  I almost feel like the whole point of fate is to try to disprove it only to make it actually happen.  If Hector actually fought Achilles instead wearing himself out by running around a wall three or four times maybe he would have actually won, but that wasn't his fate. Unfortunately, to Oedipus's dismay his fate eventually came true just like Hector's.


p.s. commented on emilylaforce's The White Suit

Knowledge of Fate

We say ignorance is bliss, and to an extent, I agree. I question what would have happened if Oedipus had never learned the true identity of his parents. Though Jocasta seemed as though she already had a suspicion of what had happened, would it have been any different if he had not looked into who his parents were? However, an even better question is whether or not his knowledge of the original prophecies would have changed the outcome. Why was Jocasta informed of Oedipus's fate in the first place. Is knowing what is going to happen in the future really any of our business? If she was not forewarned of the dangers of Oedipus, would she have given him away? If she had not given him away, would he have lusted over her enough to kill his own father? Its the same way with Macbeth. If the witches had not reviled the prophecies to him, he would not have taken matters into his own hands. The same principles apply with Jocasta she should not have taken it upon herself to try to change fate. Knowledge of fate is more dangerous than being left in the dark.

PS. I commented on Meghan's

Darkness

As we venture through Oedipus, I can't help but wonder about the concept of darkness or blindness. The key question in this blog post that I want to raise and hopefully have some discussion is "what does darkness symbolize?" throughout literature, darkness has come to symbollize a good deal of different things that transcend far pass just "the absence of light".

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, Lady Macbeth says, 

"Come, thick night,

And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,

That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,

Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark

To cry “Hold, hold!”

She calls for darkness as a source of camouflage to hide Macbeth's actions from God. As daylight shines light and allows one to see, darkness conceals. Darkness hides all ill deeds. Many people who have fear of darkness state that it isn't the actual state of being in darkness that frightens them, but the things that hide in the dark. In biblical terms, light often portrays righteousness. Jesus calls Christians the "light of the world". However, darkness represents sin. One of the Devil's many nicknames is "The Prince of Darkness."

In Plato's The Allegory of the Cave, darkness symbolizes ignorance. The shadows of the fire burning behind the prisoners symbolizes a false sense of truth. It's an illusion of the truth brought about by the shadows of the darkness. Meanwhile, the sun and the light it's bring is the reality of the truth. the process of being brought out of the darkness into the light is a literal enlightenment where one goes from the lies of darkness and is brought into the truth.

Oedipus brings a different meaning to darkness however. Though it was brought about in the harshest of circumstances, Oedipus' blindness is brought about by his own willingness. In the other two situations discussed, darkness is used with a negative connotation. However, Oedipus has a positive use for it. He would rather live in darkness than live in a world where he has to stare his sin in the face. Darkness in Oedipus manner is a good thing because it keeps him away from his sin. It creates a barrier between him and what he has done. 

p.s. commented on Gary's "What's the Point."

the Power of Words

On page 169, lines 1349-1356 of the book, Oedipus says that he wishes the Herdsman had left him to die as a small child; that it would've bettered everyones lives, that none of this would have had to happen had it been so. The Chorus then follows by saying they agreed with him, they wished that upon him too. What really struck me today, while reading this, was how powerful words can be to someone. To have negatives words spoken to you all the time, and nothing ever affirming, leads to discouragement and unhappiness. Even if Oedipus hadn't had feelings like that about himself, he never should've been told that things would be better if he'd have died. As human beings, we need affirming, uplifting, and happy words spoken into our lives, daily, hourly. If someone ever gets to the point where they wish to themselves that they'd never been born, or had never been allowed to live, that is a serious and very sad issue that should be remedied.
I can't help but think of this...your words can make someone, or break someone. And no matter how hard your day has been, or how much you have going on in your life, which should you choose to do? Make them? Or break them?

P.s. I commented on Mallory Searcy's "Fate VS. Human Nature"

Whats the point?

     In all of the other epics we have read I have been able to easily pick out the moral or point of the story but to be quite honest I don't see the moral of the story here. Over all I think this story was pretty strait forward, Oedipus killed the king and then suffered the consequences. Then there was the mess about Oedipus and his mother/wife, I mean really? What is it there for other than to be gross? I don't understand. Please someone enlighten me, I would greatly appreciate it.

PS: I commented on Emily Laforce's post "white suit"

The White Suit

I don't know about you, but the thing that stuck out to me the most in the Oedipus movie was Oedipus' white suit. I find it ironic that when his people are starving that he's wearing this snazzy white suit and giant cloak that could probably provide 3 townspeople with a new wardrobe. But upon further reflection I wondered if there was some symbolism in this. Is Oedipus really guilty or does his ignorance spare him part of the blame? Albeit, he did kill a man, but I wonder how much of it all is his fault and how much lies with his parents. (P.S. Commented on Danielle's)

Aaaaand it's working again! (Degrees of Death)

So for some reason,I can post blogs again. Huzzah!

Degrees of death

When Oedipus interrogates the herdsman,the herdsman is fearful for his own life. He says that it would've been better for him to die by some other means than for him to tell Oedipus the truth. Oedipus then tells him that it certainly would have been. He implies that his death will be worse off than it would have if he had simply died before telling Oedipus the truth. This leads to the question: Are there degrees of death? I believe so. We certainly covered this when we studied the Iliad and the Odyssey. It's once again brought up in Oedipus. I'm not really sure how high a degree of death can go however. Perhaps the most disgraceful? Example: Dying in battle as opposed to dying of old age in your comfy bed. Reminds me a bit of the Scandinavian Viking's mental picture of death. Fame never dies and what not. It's slightly depressing to me because everyone just seems to embrace death in Greek culture. Not sure if this is the case in this instance, but it certainly caught my attention.

-Brian Burkhardt

A Need to Know

If Oedipus had simply found contentment in the way things were, the story would have likely had a much happier ending. However, there was a desire in him to know the truth.  Not just generic truth, but the truth of his own origin.  I feel like this is a basic desire in all of human kind.

I was not adopted, but I have heard that there is often a desire at some point in life, whether acted upon or not, to know where they came from.  Furthermore, those of us who know our biological parents have a tendency to want to know about our ancestors.  My question is, why is this so ingrained in us?  Does our genealogy really have any bearings on who we are? Are we not more of a product of how we are raised? (that question is for the psychologists, I suppose).  Ultimately, it is in our nature to search and dig when we realize that we are ignorant, but even though we may not want to admit it, are there somethings that we would be better off not knowing?

-Jamie Kilpatrick

Commented on Jasmine's "Is Fate the Enemy" 

Sorrow for a Fallen Hero

Poor Oedipus, I don’t say this about heroes normally, but I feel Oedipus deserves the pity! He begins genuinely wanting to help his people, and he ends the same way. He doesn’t try to shy away from the consequences of his actions, even though he would be perfectly justified to do so. His killing of his father was in self-defense, but he still exiles himself. He gouges out his eyes because he feels genuine remorse for what he’s done and believes he must punish himself. So why, after everything he is willing to do, does Apollo not take pity on him and allow him to stay in the city? What is it about Oedipus that makes Apollo hate him so much? Why is Fate against him? Perhaps there is an answer to these questions, but I sure don’t know what they are. I know that I feel sorry for Oedipus, for his children, for Thebes, and even for Jocasta since she must face the consequences of trying to avert Fate before she kills herself. The story of Oedipus has bothered me ever since I read it my Senior year in High School and I don’t think today helped clear up any of the burning questions I have. In fact, I believe I now have more questions than I did before. But that’s what Honors is, and this is why I enjoy the program so much!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Jasmine’s post “Is Fate the Enemy?”

The Shepherd's Sin

     The shepherd is one of the most interesting characters in Sophocles, to me.  I do not know whether to cast the man as a villain or a hero. Without him we would have no Oedipus, yet with him Oedipus is condemned to his fate.

     When Oedipus is left for dead, the shepherd takes compassion on him and saves him. Is this his crime? How can we condemn him for saving an innocent life?  If anything surely he was being just, no god had condemn or commanded Oedipus to die. Yet, the shepherd disobeyed his mistress's orders. From my point of view I cannot accuse him of villainy, saving a innocent child who was left to die in the wilderness, and giving him a chance at life. 

     However, later in life the shepherd's valiant deed comes back to haunt him. The shepherd, loyal and faithful to his king, Laius, is the only one who escapes Oedipus. At this point, does the shepherd know the man who has killed his king is Oedipus?  He does eventually figure out who this man is, though. Yet, he doesn't speak up, he never says anything. Especially, to the queen.  This is because he knows his own life is endangered.  This is where I say the crime is committed. The shepherd lets his fear control what is right. He knows that Oedipus is a strong man and a killer and he knows that the queen has all right to kill him.  His fear commands silence, his silence leads to ruin of his city and his master's house.  The lesson I learn from the shepherd is that silence is against something wrong, is just as bad as condoning it. Also if one let's fear stop them from standing up for what is right, than evil has already conquered.

Commented on Tinsley's post.

Silence: Villainy or Wisdom?

The Shepherd has a part unlike any other in this play.  All throughout the readings of Oedipus Rex, I was contemplating the question we were all discussing: depending on the evil, is it actually better to remain in ignorance than to know truth?  However, there was a deeper question to consider as well: If you know the truth, do you let others remain in ignorance of it?  And if so, does that make you the villain in your story?  In the play, the Shepherd knows all along the horrors which are occurring, and the evil deeds which could potentially happen.  In a round about way, he is actually responsible for them all. So what should he have done?  Was it wrong for him to save the young child?  What about when he came with the word of the King’s death, and saw his slayer sitting on the throne?  Was it wrong for him to stay silent then?  I think even more critical and difficult to ask than whether it’s better to personally remain ignorant is the question of letting other’s remain in ignorance.  When is it the right thing to leave things be and let the people around you live their lives, not knowing the evil you do? When are you manipulating fate by remaining silent, and does your silence condemn or condone the actions of others?

P.S. Commented on Lauren's "Irony in Blindness."

Fate vs. Human Nature

Is it not strange that whenever a person tries to defy a prophecy that it ultimately comes true. I believe that when the oracle gives its message that it already knows about their responces. I guess human natue is not hard to predict. If someone does something once, then they are more likely to do it again. Oedepius is in my pity, he had no idea what was going on until it was too late. I do not care much for most of the other characters, but I guess one must hold some kind of respect towards the guy for carrying out his word in the end and not just trying to deny or cover it up. The whole story seems to let us in to our human nature, its not pleasant but it is the truth. Though our situation hopefully is not at all like Oedipus, we all have faults and must make desicions that may not be pleasant or easy. That is life.

Irony in Blindness

   The tragedy of Oedipus Rex is one full of intense irony. The fact that Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother is twistedly ironic, but ironic all the same. I pity Oedipus and his situation because his entire life has been a lie and now that the truth has come into light, he has to pay the price for his ignorance. But even though I pity him, I do not pity his crime. He did not know that it was his father that he slew but the simple fact that he murdered is what I cannot justify. I think part of the reason why he does not believe Tiresias is because he is blinded by pride and simply cannot accept that he is the cause of his cities decline. The other part I think is because he thought no one would ever find out.
   When Tiresias accuses Oedipus of the murder of the late Laius, Tiresias says, "I say you know not in what worst of shame/ You live together with those nearest you,/ And see not in what evil plight you stand" (14). Then Oedipus accuses Tiresias of not telling the truth and says he is blind, " in eyes, and ears, and mind" (14)! How ironic is it that when Oedipus realizes what he has done that he gouges his own eyes out and becomes one of the physically blind? The consequences of his sins are too much for him to bear. When he sees his wife/mother hanging he, "[snatched] from her dress gold pins/ Wherewith she was adorned, he lifted them,/ And smote the nerves of his own eyeballs, saying/ Something like this-- that they should see no more/ Evils like those he had endured or wrought" (45).

Maybe if Oedipus had not been 'blinded' before by pride and ignorance, he would have been able to keep his sight in the end.

P.S.- I commented on Amanda's blog.

Is Fate the Enemy?

In class, Dr. Schuler asked if there was an enemy in this story. I heard lots of different answers, but in my opinion fate is the real enemy. In ancient Greece, not even the Gods could free you of your fate, so if Oedipus' parents had not abandoned him how would his fate be different? Is his fate ultimatley to be abandoned by his parents, therefore it sets a stage for him to kill them, or would his fate be different if they had not abandoned him. I kind of believe that because his parents abandoned him, his fate was their punishment. They tried to change fate so they were ultimately punished, but due to his guilt so was oedipus. All in all, fate is playing dirty, no matter what happens Oedipus is dealt a bad hand by fate. even if his mother did not commit suicide nor did he kill her, he would still be miserable due to that fact he laid with his mother. I do not believe he would be able to just ignore it and proceed with his life, but how could anyone that had any sense of morals. I don't want to say his mother deserved what happened, but once she found out that she had married her son, she should have told him. That's just my opinion, Fate seems to be the ultimate enemy, but his mother is no angel either. P.S. I commented on Amanda's Ignorance Is Not Bliss

Ignorance is not bliss...

"Time who sees all has found you out

against your will; judges your marriage accursed 

begetter and begot at one in it."

Is ignorance bliss? Would it have been better if Oedipus never knew the identity of his parents? They abandoned him because of a prophecy that he would kill them... but if they had not abandoned him they would not have died the way they did. Oedipus fulfilled the destructive prophecy when his mother killed herself because she feared Oedipus discovering the truth of her duplicity and abandonment. She that he knew as his wife... was also his mother. How wrong is that?? Regardless, she did not know her own son when she met him and so she married him. However, if they had begun with truth, his father would still be alive as well. Because Oedipus did not know his father when he met him on the road, he killed him in hasty anger. Since he killed his father, that left his mother a widow whom he later took as his wife. So maybe ignorance isn't bliss, but there's a lesson in truth to be learned from this story. Truth brings life while falsehood harbors death.

"Count no mortal happy till he has passed the final limit of his life secure from pain."

Commented on Lauren's

"Hath Not a Jew Passions..."

            Throughout the last year or so, I've spent time with Dante's Divine Comedy. In it Dante's protaganist ventures down into the depths of Hell. He encounters many of the damned and through that medium, Dante examines the nature of sin and of mankind itself. I agree with a lot of what Dante says, however, one thing that I disagree is his organization of the nine "circles" of Hell. The second circle is home to those overpowered by lust, the third houses those overcome by gluttony, and the fourth contains those consumed with greed. Normally, people would not question this. However, I think that the all three of these circles can be categorized in one word: Appetite. Gluttony is appetite for physical food, Greed is appetite for money, power, or other physical objects, and lust is appetite for.. well, you know.One thing predominant in Book IX of The Republic is appetite. It says near 571b, "I think all of us harbor within ourselves unnecessary pleasures and appetites. Some are also lawless." Socrates and Glaucon go on to explain the characteristics of private and public tyranny. They say that it starts with subconscious appetite. The desire only appears in a dream, but the dream state soon provides fruit for the awakened state. The desire grows like a tick. Increasingly occupying one's thought until every decision is driven by desire. I agree with this to an extent. I believe that in the back of every man's mind is a sense of self-preservation and betterment. Mankind ultimately wants to better itself. Book II also supports this with Glaucon's analogy of the Ring of Gyges. Glaucon states that the reason people act justly here on Earth is only for self-preservation. We give up temporary pleasure on Earth to be rewarded by God via eternal pleasure. The negation also is true. We submit ourselves to temporary abstinence of worldly pleasure, so we do not have to abstain from eternal pleasure and face eternal punishment in Hell.

P.s. commented on Emerson's "Knowledge or Ignorance."

Shakespeare's Divided Line

“Fair Portia's counterfeit! What demi-god / Hath come so near creation? Move these eyes? / Or whether, riding on the balls of mine, / Seem they in motion? Here are sever'd lips, / Parted with sugar breath: so sweet a bar / Should sunder such sweet friends. Here in her hairs / The painter plays the spider and hath woven / A golden mesh to entrap the hearts of men, / Faster than gnats in cobwebs; but her eyes,— / How could he see to do them? having made one, / Methinks it should have power to steal both his / And leave itself unfurnish'd. Yet look, how far / The substance of my praise doth wrong this shadow / In underprizing it, so far this shadow / Doth limp behind the substance” (The Merchant of Venice III.2.1485-1498).

It’s funny, the things that go through your head when you’re standing on stage listening to the same lines over and over again. A lot of times they become routine, meaningless words. But other times, it takes a while to really comprehend and understand what’s being said. This quote is one of the latter. I understood what Bassanio was saying about the portrait of Portia, but it never sunk in what he was really saying. It wasn’t until after we had discussed the Divided Line on Tuesday that this monologue began to stick out. Sometimes I wonder if Shakespeare had read Plato, because this is eerily like Plato’s discussion on the Good. Bassanio describes for the audience a painting of Portia. But then he remarks that his description cannot do the picture justice, just as the picture does not truly represent the full Portia. On Tuesday night, Plato’s forms suddenly made sense to me. As a result of this, for those of you who saw the play, every time this scene came around, I was thinking of Plato and the Divided Line, which may have accounted for some of my excited facial expressions as I drew multiple awesome connections!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

~Meghan

P.S. (I commented on Katelyn’s post “Socrates on Homer”)

P.P.S. (On a completely unrelated note, Merchant is now officially over and I don’t know what to do with myself!!)

Creating utopia is an impossible endeavor, not only because people are flawed, but also because people are different. Societies cannot continue to exist when they are built upon such specifics models, ones that don’t take into account the ever-changing needs and values of a population. Socrates is advocating a system that is his ideal of perfection, but it is not everyone’s ideal society. Socrates advocates the implementation of a specifically reared ruling class, raised to uphold the ideals of his utopia, but this would only cause those guardians to become increasingly more out of touch with the population due to their shielded existence. Who would be updating the established guardian curriculum? The act of attempting to create a perfect and just society for an entire population is partially responsible for why society is not perfect or just. One man’s heaven is another man’s hell, and by suggesting that one’s heaven should be implemented amongst a people group, one becomes the reason others devise their own utopias.

Knowledge or Ignorance?

There is some kind of peace of being oblivious to the surroundings and once people learn about the life and become "enlightened" that sort of peace suddenly disappears. I know I'm basically describing childhood to adulthood dependent. But, do people really want to hear the last minutes of the watergate videos? Sometimes ignorance is preferred to knowledge because people have to think whether the information does more harm than good. Us guys do it all the time, we tell girls that they don't look fat and that they look fine because we don't want to deal with the fallout. Do girls really want to know what we think in those instances or do they prefer the sugar cookie we offer them? I believe there is a balance between knowledge and ignorance: too much knowledge make people sad and aware of how unjust the world is and too much ignorance hinders the mind from growing so that it can take care of people and ultimately keep the circle of life.

I commented on Tyler Cofields' "I'm not a puppet... I'm a real boy."

I'm not a puppet...I'm a real boy!

In Plato's The Republic, the story of "The Cave" provides a glimpse of the deceptive methods used to influence people.  As the puppet master controls what the other individuals in the cave are able to see, a parallel comparison can be made with the government in the United States.  I have just completed the Cashflow Quadrant, which is Robert Kiyosaki's book that outlines the simple steps necessary to become wealthy.  His primary argument is that the United States seeks to retain more ignorant citizens as opposed to enlightened individuals.  By deceiving Americans in regards to personal assets, liabilities, taxes, salaries, and security, the government is able to absorb more income.  This increase in income is gained directly from the expenses of the lower and middle classes of ignorant American citizens.  The ironic comparison to "The Cave" becomes even more interesting after examining the individual that escaped from the puppet master's prison.  He became known as a philosopher after he experienced true reality; however, when he returned to release his companions, they believed him to be crazy.  Similarly in Kiyosaki's book, enlightened American citizens are perceived to be crazy because they combat the normal thought process that most people practice in economics.  The truth exists in the fact that the philosopher did experience true reality, and Robert Kiyosaki is a billionaire because he followed the steps outlined in his book.  Both of these people chose not to be ignorant puppets under the control of a seemingly superior being; instead, they enlightened themselves and sought to change the rest of the world.

yo

                I absolutely hate talking politics. I don’t do it.  I feel no desire to do so and honestly most of it goes over my head and I just tune out of conversations. So the fact that Plato felt like he even had a grasp on what a Utopian society would look like or what a superior government would look like is impressive in itself. But really what I got out of all of this is that there is no ideal government or society, it’s unattainable. He has this grand idea of what would work but it’s just that—an idea. So then as he went through describing the 4 types of governments there are holes in all of them. It’s like voting for president; you’re picking the lesser of two evils. There has to be a better choice but maybe there isn’t a right choice. Perhaps I’m going off on something not completely unrelated to Plato or Socrates and I’ve yet to even mention a cave but that’s what today’s discussion had me thinking about.