Monday, 14 November 2011
"Look at your man, now back at me."
I couldn’t resist posting the Old Spice video. It was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of a man. What is masculinity? In my opinion, masculinity are traits that make up the ‘perfect’ man. What are these perfect traits? Well the perfect men are painted to be strong, brave, heroic, intelligent, protective and powerful beings. (At least, in every action film I’ve ever seen)
In society today, we are told how to be a ‘man’ from various forms of media. The old Spice example is just one extreme form of commercialism describing the ideal man. Through the television screen we are told what we need to look like, what we need to smell like, and what we need to act like. In the commercial, the character implies that men are supposed to be strong and muscular when he asks, “Does your man look like me? No.” We’re supposed to be the “handyman” who can fix any problem and be able to do anything. The commercial takes this to a bit of an extreme when they talk about how women want a man who can build a dream kitchen.
Through literature, authors sometimes depict their version of masculinity. As I draw back to the vague memories I have of heroes in books, they all seem to have similar ideal “manly” traits. Heroes are courageous, fearless and always come to the rescue. In the odd case when the character turns his back on society, the character is viewed as the “bad guy”, the coward, a very “unmanly” person. I recall a scene in Stephen Mitchell’s translated version of Gilgamesh, where Enkidu was viewed as a coward, and an unmanly figure. This was when Gilgamesh wanted to go off and fight Humbaba. Enkidu was scared and told Gilgamesh to go alone. As a result, Gilgamesh seemed to imply that if he had gone off alone and died in battle, society would remember Gilgamesh as a fearless and manly hero. In contrast, Enkidu would be the unmanly coward who stayed behind.
Orwell’s 1984 illustrates masculinity through his description of “BIG BROTHER.” In my opinion the slogan “Big Brother is watching you,” enforces the notion that males are the protectors of society. Males know what’s best, and need to have control and power. The talking screen seems to tell society how to act in a direct sense. This is similar to society today, however the television tells men how to act in a symbolic indirect sense. Even the name itself, “Big Brother,” portrays the stereotypical manly older brother. A superior figure that you can go to when you need help.
Society tells us how to be manly through media and literature. The Old Spice video has 21 million views! Why is this? I would assume it’s because the video is extremely funny, and an extreme exaggeration of stereotypes for men. The fact that 21 million people voluntarily went on the web to watch this is staggering to me. It makes me think that of those 21 million people, at least a couple million loved the commercial and bought the Old spice product. By buying this product, they conform to the notion of what we are told to have and be like. Just like how Winston conformed and gave in, eventually coming to “Love Big Brother.”
In society today, we are told how to be a ‘man’ from various forms of media. The old Spice example is just one extreme form of commercialism describing the ideal man. Through the television screen we are told what we need to look like, what we need to smell like, and what we need to act like. In the commercial, the character implies that men are supposed to be strong and muscular when he asks, “Does your man look like me? No.” We’re supposed to be the “handyman” who can fix any problem and be able to do anything. The commercial takes this to a bit of an extreme when they talk about how women want a man who can build a dream kitchen.
Through literature, authors sometimes depict their version of masculinity. As I draw back to the vague memories I have of heroes in books, they all seem to have similar ideal “manly” traits. Heroes are courageous, fearless and always come to the rescue. In the odd case when the character turns his back on society, the character is viewed as the “bad guy”, the coward, a very “unmanly” person. I recall a scene in Stephen Mitchell’s translated version of Gilgamesh, where Enkidu was viewed as a coward, and an unmanly figure. This was when Gilgamesh wanted to go off and fight Humbaba. Enkidu was scared and told Gilgamesh to go alone. As a result, Gilgamesh seemed to imply that if he had gone off alone and died in battle, society would remember Gilgamesh as a fearless and manly hero. In contrast, Enkidu would be the unmanly coward who stayed behind.
Orwell’s 1984 illustrates masculinity through his description of “BIG BROTHER.” In my opinion the slogan “Big Brother is watching you,” enforces the notion that males are the protectors of society. Males know what’s best, and need to have control and power. The talking screen seems to tell society how to act in a direct sense. This is similar to society today, however the television tells men how to act in a symbolic indirect sense. Even the name itself, “Big Brother,” portrays the stereotypical manly older brother. A superior figure that you can go to when you need help.
Society tells us how to be manly through media and literature. The Old Spice video has 21 million views! Why is this? I would assume it’s because the video is extremely funny, and an extreme exaggeration of stereotypes for men. The fact that 21 million people voluntarily went on the web to watch this is staggering to me. It makes me think that of those 21 million people, at least a couple million loved the commercial and bought the Old spice product. By buying this product, they conform to the notion of what we are told to have and be like. Just like how Winston conformed and gave in, eventually coming to “Love Big Brother.”
Monday, 24 October 2011
One can be happy, But Can one stay happy?
Is it truly possible to be happy? Well, I think it’s obvious the answer is yes. However, In Sigmund Freud’s point of view, it is not possible. I can see what he means because we often associate happiness with pleasure. If you look at happiness in that sense, then it is not possible to be completely happy. As we discussed in previous lectures, a key component to pleasure is duration. I think Freud believes that one can never truly stay happy.
In his book, “Civilization and it’s Discontent,” Freud discusses how it is necessary to have rules in society. He believes that humans are animals and that without rules civilization would go out of control. For this reason, rules are necessary. However, can one truly be happy if rules and regulations are enforced upon them? Well, either way, one could say that without rules everyone would suffer in a chaotic world. Ironically, In Freud’s opinion a society with rules restricts individual freedom. Can an individual really be happy if they can’t do whatever they want? In some cases yes, but often times no.
An example of this can be found at work. I work in the fast food chain, and after running around all day I get hungry! To be honest, If I had the freedom, I’d go in the back and eat when it’s not busy. However, that would be against the rules. This restricts my notion of happiness. (A satisfied stomach is happiness to me) Although I’m making money, and enjoy the interactions with customers, I’m not truly happy. Or at least…my happiness doesn’t last long after my stomach grumbles.. Sometimes I do feel like my manager is unfair, and this would further prove Freud’s opinion that society is run by greedy administrators.
Being a hockey fan I can’t resist making a hockey analogy to this whole question of “Can one truly be happy?” Let’s draw back to the 2010 Winter Olympics. I recall watching Ryan Miller, the goaltender of the USA hockey team being disappointed and discontent with himself. He had just received the silver medal around his neck, yet he didn’t smile for a second. Finishing second place out of all the countries doesn’t constitute happiness I suppose. One might ask why? Well, I guess if you were to look at it in Freud’s perspective…one will never be satisfied with what they achieve. Miller wanted that Gold medal, and was discontent with his consolation prize.
Ultimately, if you forced me to view happiness through Freud’s eyes, I would say that it is not possible to be happy. I think that Freud associates happiness with freedom, and success. In that sense, of course nobody can ever be happy forever. However, I happiness CAN be achieved. Remaining happy is another story.
In his book, “Civilization and it’s Discontent,” Freud discusses how it is necessary to have rules in society. He believes that humans are animals and that without rules civilization would go out of control. For this reason, rules are necessary. However, can one truly be happy if rules and regulations are enforced upon them? Well, either way, one could say that without rules everyone would suffer in a chaotic world. Ironically, In Freud’s opinion a society with rules restricts individual freedom. Can an individual really be happy if they can’t do whatever they want? In some cases yes, but often times no.
An example of this can be found at work. I work in the fast food chain, and after running around all day I get hungry! To be honest, If I had the freedom, I’d go in the back and eat when it’s not busy. However, that would be against the rules. This restricts my notion of happiness. (A satisfied stomach is happiness to me) Although I’m making money, and enjoy the interactions with customers, I’m not truly happy. Or at least…my happiness doesn’t last long after my stomach grumbles.. Sometimes I do feel like my manager is unfair, and this would further prove Freud’s opinion that society is run by greedy administrators.
Being a hockey fan I can’t resist making a hockey analogy to this whole question of “Can one truly be happy?” Let’s draw back to the 2010 Winter Olympics. I recall watching Ryan Miller, the goaltender of the USA hockey team being disappointed and discontent with himself. He had just received the silver medal around his neck, yet he didn’t smile for a second. Finishing second place out of all the countries doesn’t constitute happiness I suppose. One might ask why? Well, I guess if you were to look at it in Freud’s perspective…one will never be satisfied with what they achieve. Miller wanted that Gold medal, and was discontent with his consolation prize.
Ultimately, if you forced me to view happiness through Freud’s eyes, I would say that it is not possible to be happy. I think that Freud associates happiness with freedom, and success. In that sense, of course nobody can ever be happy forever. However, I happiness CAN be achieved. Remaining happy is another story.
Friday, 14 October 2011
Monday, 10 October 2011
Socrates, a brave man indeed.
"2. Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him a martyr?"
I most certainly think Socrates is a man willing to die for his beliefs. I also believe that he has characteristics of a martyr as well. After reading the passage, my head was definitely throbbing. Although it was a difficult passage to read, I do remember Socrates giving me an impression of being a brave man, willing to die. He was a man who wouldn’t change his beliefs in exchange for freedom.
Socrates clearly states he is willing to die for his beliefs. If the jury told him that he would go in peace, as long as he stops preaching, Socrates said he would decline the proposal. “As long as I have breath and strength I will not give up philosophy and exhorting you and declaring the truth to every one of you…” (Apology 29 d) Socrates would rather die than change his beliefs. This is because he chooses to serve God, rather than serving the jury. This to me, is a strong characteristic that all martyr’s share as well. When faced with death, a martyr would choose to follow God’s command, rather than anyone else’s command.
On the other hand, some may say that Socrates is not willing to die because he does not bring his argument into assemblies or to the state. Instead he only works and preaches privately to people. In my opinion, Socrates does this because he’s sensible. Of course he wouldn’t go preaching towards the assembly or state! He knows he would surely be trialed and be put to death immediately. To compare to modern day society, would it seem sensible for a person who loves the Boston Bruins to go preaching about their team in a Vancouver Canuck pub? (I would assume that the fan would face some form of abuse.) Although this is a bit of a stretch for comparisons, you get my point right? It doesn’t make the Boston fan a coward for not doing so. The bruin fan is just sensible, and doesn’t want to die on the spot... Likewise, it does not mean Socrates isn’t willing to die for his beliefs. It just means he’s sensible, and not suicidal.
When I think of a martyr, I think of a brave person who dies for their beliefs. Socrates is exactly that. He chose not to bring his family to help his plea because he was brave. Socrates did not want to appeal to the jury emotionally by bringing in his three kids. Instead he wanted to stand alone, and be judged by his own actions and words. He didn’t want to hide behind his family. (Apology 33 d-e) To me, this is bravery. Socrates would rather face death than appeal emotionally to the jury. If he was judged to be a person corrupting the “young minds,” Socrates was willing to accept his punishments.
After Socrates had been condemned to death, he still remained firm with his beliefs. If he had the choice, he wouldn’t have defended himself in any other way to escape death. “I would very much rather defend myself as I did, and die, than as you would have had me do, and live.” (Apology 38 e) This clearly illustrates how Socrates was a man willing to die for his beliefs. He didn’t weep or beg for mercy from the jury after they sentenced him. Instead, he accepted his fate bravely.
To me, Socrates is a man willing to die for God. He felt that it was God’s wish for him to discover who was wise and who was not. This would make him a martyr. Although he was accused for corrupting the young minds, Socrates accepted the charges. He did not fear his punishment. He did not change his beliefs when facing death. Instead, Socrates stood up for his beliefs in the face of the jury, and ultimately accepted his death sentence bravely.
I most certainly think Socrates is a man willing to die for his beliefs. I also believe that he has characteristics of a martyr as well. After reading the passage, my head was definitely throbbing. Although it was a difficult passage to read, I do remember Socrates giving me an impression of being a brave man, willing to die. He was a man who wouldn’t change his beliefs in exchange for freedom.
Socrates clearly states he is willing to die for his beliefs. If the jury told him that he would go in peace, as long as he stops preaching, Socrates said he would decline the proposal. “As long as I have breath and strength I will not give up philosophy and exhorting you and declaring the truth to every one of you…” (Apology 29 d) Socrates would rather die than change his beliefs. This is because he chooses to serve God, rather than serving the jury. This to me, is a strong characteristic that all martyr’s share as well. When faced with death, a martyr would choose to follow God’s command, rather than anyone else’s command.
On the other hand, some may say that Socrates is not willing to die because he does not bring his argument into assemblies or to the state. Instead he only works and preaches privately to people. In my opinion, Socrates does this because he’s sensible. Of course he wouldn’t go preaching towards the assembly or state! He knows he would surely be trialed and be put to death immediately. To compare to modern day society, would it seem sensible for a person who loves the Boston Bruins to go preaching about their team in a Vancouver Canuck pub? (I would assume that the fan would face some form of abuse.) Although this is a bit of a stretch for comparisons, you get my point right? It doesn’t make the Boston fan a coward for not doing so. The bruin fan is just sensible, and doesn’t want to die on the spot... Likewise, it does not mean Socrates isn’t willing to die for his beliefs. It just means he’s sensible, and not suicidal.
When I think of a martyr, I think of a brave person who dies for their beliefs. Socrates is exactly that. He chose not to bring his family to help his plea because he was brave. Socrates did not want to appeal to the jury emotionally by bringing in his three kids. Instead he wanted to stand alone, and be judged by his own actions and words. He didn’t want to hide behind his family. (Apology 33 d-e) To me, this is bravery. Socrates would rather face death than appeal emotionally to the jury. If he was judged to be a person corrupting the “young minds,” Socrates was willing to accept his punishments.
After Socrates had been condemned to death, he still remained firm with his beliefs. If he had the choice, he wouldn’t have defended himself in any other way to escape death. “I would very much rather defend myself as I did, and die, than as you would have had me do, and live.” (Apology 38 e) This clearly illustrates how Socrates was a man willing to die for his beliefs. He didn’t weep or beg for mercy from the jury after they sentenced him. Instead, he accepted his fate bravely.
To me, Socrates is a man willing to die for God. He felt that it was God’s wish for him to discover who was wise and who was not. This would make him a martyr. Although he was accused for corrupting the young minds, Socrates accepted the charges. He did not fear his punishment. He did not change his beliefs when facing death. Instead, Socrates stood up for his beliefs in the face of the jury, and ultimately accepted his death sentence bravely.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Monday, 19 September 2011
3. To what extent is Omelas an analogy for our own society? Please discuss and provide examples.
After reading and discussing the story with the class, I couldn’t help but draw various connections between Omelas and our society.
The first example off the top of my head is child labour. Often when we picture child labour, we imagine an African child with malnutrition working days on end for clothing companies. We picture an inhumane society filled with innocent children, some orphaned, others sold off to work for companies like Nike. How many of us can say we don’t own one article of clothing as a product of child labour? We would be ignorant to say we don’t.
Aside from child labour, there’s also slavery. However, slavery today isn’t as stereotypical as one would think. It’s not just Africans captured and sent off to foreign homes serving their masters. Slavery in today’s society can be found within popular companies. I for one am a guilty chocolate and Coca-Cola lover. However, the pleasures I receive from consuming these goods come in exchange for someone’s pain and suffering. In recent studies, I’ve discovered that Hershey chocolates, coco-companies, and sugar cane factories have associated with slavery, and child labour. This is appalling to me. How can there still be slavery in the twenty first century? Although I am firmly against slavery I would find it difficult to give up chocolate. For this reason, I’d probably not walk away from Omelas.
Aside from child labour, there’s also slavery. However, slavery today isn’t as stereotypical as one would think. It’s not just Africans captured and sent off to foreign homes serving their masters. Slavery in today’s society can be found within popular companies. I for one am a guilty chocolate and Coca-Cola lover. However, the pleasures I receive from consuming these goods come in exchange for someone’s pain and suffering. In recent studies, I’ve discovered that Hershey chocolates, coco-companies, and sugar cane factories have associated with slavery, and child labour. This is appalling to me. How can there still be slavery in the twenty first century? Although I am firmly against slavery I would find it difficult to give up chocolate. For this reason, I’d probably not walk away from Omelas.
Another example of how Omelas is an analogy of our own society can be found in schools. Everyone has faced some form of bullying in today’s society. It could be physical, verbal or cyber bullying. In all these cases, it’s fair to say one person’s suffering contributes to another’s happiness. Laughter and attention is the product of someone’s pain and humiliation. When I picture the boy in the cell, I imagine how humiliated he must have felt. How exposed and vulnerable he felt because he was naked. In my experience, when I’ve been bullied I felt similarly to the boy.
I also like to look at this story in a different context. The author could be trying to portray a separate analogy as well. In the story, readers learn that a few people who visit and see the boy end up leaving town alone. This can be an analogy to the neglected homeless people in our world. I’ve walked past countless homeless people in my life. I notice them, but sometimes I pretend that they aren’t there. Their suffering saddens me, and If I could, I’d want nothing more to feed them all. It’s difficult to know how helpless I am, in putting a roof over their heads. I can relate to the people who walk away from Omelas. Like them, I walked away from the suffering. Not because I didn’t care, but because I couldn’t help but feel guilty for the basic necessities that I have taken for granted.
In my opinion, Omelas is an analogy for the society we live in today. We live in a cruel world. Although we are shielded from the truth in North America, there is suffering all over the world. Many children, and adults work countless hours for low wages to manufacture the clothes we wear. They are starved and forced to work days on end. I’m starting to think that we live in a society where it is a necessity that someone, somewhere, needs to suffer in order for the world to prosper. This society we live in is no Utopia. If it is true that Omelas is an analogy of our society, how can we believe Ursula Le Guin when she says that Omelas is a Utopia? Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)