Thee Awakeningg

I have recently expressed my opinions about feminism in another paper for AP English, so I will withhold from talking about them on here. For the rest of this blog, I will focus on The Awakening and the ideas that go along with it. Enjoy!

Picture Edna, from The Awakening, as a normal, run of the mill woman from her times. I know it is hard to do, being that we recently read a book in which she was the main character. This leads me to my first of many tangents. I didn't know that I had strong feelings toward this until right this very second, but it bothers me that most books are focused on a set amount of people. It makes it hard to not create a larger than life view of the few main characters. I'm going off on another tangent from my first tangent here, but isn't it pretty awesome that most of the blogs for this class are full of opinions that are based off of little to nothing, and were formed practically on the spot? I am not trying to sound sarcastic, because I really do think it's cool that we are at an age in which we are constantly forced to form new opinions on new and unique topics. And while we are completely away from what I began talking about, I would just like to ask if that paper we got reminding us about the blog, was directed partially to me? If it was, I would reluctantly agree to change my format into a much more formal format, in which I write long sentences that sound good, but mean little to nothing. That came off a little harsh, sorry, I always get in a certain mood when writing on this blog. Also, (I promise this is the last thing!) it is obviously easier to type this all out, being that there is a sense of invincibility that people get when interacting online.

Anyways, imagine being a simpleton that was on vacation around the spot where Edna was. You just happen to occasionally see Edna, Robert, and the other characters, as well as hearing about what is going on with them. You have enough information to understand that Edna is inching away from her loving, seemingly great, husband, and gravitating towards that wife-stealing Robert. We all know that Robert is a big flirt and he can't control himself. Then for a while you hear nothing about the whole group of people, and continue to obey your husband and do whatever he pleases, because that is what seems to be socially normal at that time. (This goes without saying, but I obviously do not support anything like that, and am just saying it to put the reader in the times that the story was written) You eventually go back home, and hear the news that Edna had gone and drowned herself. There are many rumors, of course, which explain why she would have done such a terrible thing, although each "explanation" has their own holes and isn't completely clear. No matter what the real reasoning of her suicide was, it would seem like such an absurd and drastic solution to a problem that couldn't have been that terrible, considering what you knew about her.

My whole point of writing that scenario out was to try to show that well...actually...I'm not that sure. It started out as my attempt at expressing that suicide isn't this huge deal that automatically begins a revolution. Suicide occurs all the time, in every area, that affects all types of people. Now that I look more into my scenario, I see how I could be attempting to show that inner struggles of a person, or a society as a whole, do not relate well to the general public, unless, of course, if you read this fictional book. Also, this brings up a point that I am sure all english teachers have heard thousands... no millions of times: "Maybe the author just wrote the book to provoke emotions and to supply the public with a 'good read'. There doesn't need to be a deep meaning to everything in our world". At the same time that I say that, I am realizing that the "deepness" of worldly things, all depends on the individual. Going along with that logic, then does that mean that The Awakening was a book that was set on supporting their ideas, despite the fact that the author claims to not have had that in mind? Is a book, and its meaning, up to the author, or the reader to determine? (Thats a good question, I like it. Very vague and could provoke much discussion.)

I need to connect all of this to the current world still, I suppose. It is pretty obvious that times have gotten better for women, although there is still a clear advantage for men in life. It doesn't effect me much, being that I am a young man, but I understand it has been on many peoples cases for years. Hahah I'm laughing at the fact that I simplified such a large issue down to a simple, ignorant sentence. But really, I do understand the hugeness of this issue, and its importance. I am not nearly as optimistic as some people seem to be, but I do not think that anytime in my lifetime, women and men will be truly equal. I think that women will have the advantage over men, before equality would ever be reached. Nothing in this world is completely equal and balanced. Also, people still commit suicide often. So that's an ongoing issue that you can't really put any positive spin on. It is pretty terrible to think about, and scary, but I am assuming if someone is very religious, they believe that the person that committed suicide was meant to do it and God has a plan for everyone.

I would lastly like to state that I agree that all peoples should be equal no matter what race, culture, education, upbringing, sexuality, gender, or hair color that person is/has. I do admit that I am a little tired of reading the books from this unit, and am looking forward to the next unit. Thanks to all my readers, and I appreciate my small, but loyal fan group!

Peace Out,
Jake Gregan

Normal

Normal, used as an adjective, is defined as "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected". Being normal is an intriguing concept in my mind. I'd love to meet someone that is normal, although, it is unlikely, because a truly normal person can not exist in our world. It is impossible for there to be worldwide standards, that you can conform to. Every person has different mindsets, beliefs, and morals, which makes it impossible to come across an action that could be considered "typical, or expected". I'm sure that I have made it clear that I am more of an individualist, compared to people with a more sociological view on the world. If I was to write a blog from the point of a socialist, my answer would be much different, and probably more accepted by people, compared to my natural mentality. 

The word normal has a bad connotation to most people in our society. It is almost ironic, because everyone is normal in their own way. For example, a serial killer may find it normal to kill an innocent person, while a nun may find it normal to pray for 6 hours a night. Anytime a person calls another person normal, they could mean two things, one, that person has similar mindsets as the person being called normal, or, that the person being called normal, is normal according to our societies beliefs. Both are valid reasonings. 

Normal connects to Prufrock because he is considered normal, in a way, to most readers. One popular question brought up during Prufrock discussions was if Prufrock should be considered a hero, or just a normal guy. I, personally think that a person can be normal and a hero. Prufrock finds it normal that he can't "grow a pair" to go talk to that girl. He needs to find it normal, because normal is acceptable, and he needs to feel justified. Prufrock is overcomplicating and overthinking things. I can relate because I know that I do this for every little thing in life, and even though I know I do it, I can't stop. This is where my view of Prufrock differs a little from most people. Many people will tell Prufrock to "do what he wants to do and go and talk to the girl!" Well if he really did want to go talk to the girl, why didn't he? "His nerves got the best of him, he really wants to talk to her!" It is obvious that his nerves aren't the only issue. And even if they were, and he got over his nerves and talked to her, do you think their relationship would really last? "What if they talk and fall in love and marry?!" What if she likes him as a person, but is not attracted to him physically, so she says she just wants to be friends, (because, lets be honest, physical attraction is important in relationships) and he agrees reluctantly and becomes in a long lasting friendship with a girl he secretly wants to date the whole time?

Hahah I laugh at my little rant type thing above this, because I know how biased, and negative it is. I mean it is what I truly think currently in my life, but I know that it will change soon enough. Its amazing that at my age my opinions and beliefs can change so quickly, and how easily swayed they are. I can't really control it, but at least I am aware of the fact that I am constantly changing and believing in other things. 

Cultural Relativism/Morals

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism by James Rachels, was a very interesting read that provoked many good thoughts from me. It had an obvious connection to Things Fall Apart, but also discussed Cultural Relativism in more detail. There was an obvious issue with cultures in Things Fall Apart, between their native tribe, and the new group that begun to take over. There is also the differences in morals between Things Fall Apart and today’s society. The first instance of this is when in Things Fall Apart, there was the deal made that if a boy and a virgin is traded to another tribe, they avoid going to war. In today’s society, that simply sounds absurd and wrong. Just because our society frowns upon deals like that, it does not make it morally incorrect to the people in Things Fall Apart. We are discussing two different societies, and the societies choose what is morally correct and incorrect.

I know I shouldn’t say this. Last time I brought up baby turtles in a piece of literature, my classmates could not get through the fact that I used turtles to prove my very serious point (If you want to know better details on this just ask Jess Vielma). The issue I have with this article, is with the claim that all cultures have some values in common. Rachels uses the first value, a value in protecting and taking close care of their young, to support her belief in common values. Baby turtles are born in the sand, far from the semi-safe water, and are defenseless overall. Their parents are long gone and did not think twice before they laid the eggs and swam away. This may seem a bit silly to some, but it does bring up the point that not all beings are cared for and protected by their parents. It also brings up the question if all animals, excluding humans, can have different “societies”. My answer to that question is simply of course. What makes us humans think we have the right to believe we are the only living organisms that are capable of societies?

Alright. I’ll be honest here. I did read The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, and parts of it was decently interesting to me. It is obvious that it was written in a sociological perspective, and I like to focus more on the individual, psychological perspective. With that said, I still wrote the top two paragraphs in order to get a good grade, but now I am going to blog about the other things I was planning on blogging about.

I have many morals. You have many morals. He has many morals. She has many morals. But how can we know that they are all the same? The answer is that we cant. There is absolutely no realistic way to know another persons morals. People who disagree might say “Well they can obviously just tell you what their morals are”, and how do you know what they are saying is true to them? I don’t believe that we, as individuals, don’t even know our own morals. Some may say that all people have at least the basic morals like “don’t kill people constantly” and “personal hygiene is important”, in common with each other, although, I strongly disagree with that statement. For all I know, that statement could very well be true, although, we will never know for sure that everyone shares a certain moral. It is near impossible to figure out your own morals, nonetheless every single persons morals in a world, or society.

At this time I will point out why I said “no REALISTIC way to know another persons morals”. I do believe that in a perfect world, there could be tests that a person is put through, in order to determine their morals. For example, there could be a test where the moral of when it is justified to kill an animal or another human. That actually brings me to an idea for a good “dystopian world” book, where people are raised by their parents, and at the age of 18, they are put through a series of tests that determines if the newly created adults, have the “correct” morals, which, of course, are decided by the leaders of this dystopian world. The people who pass get to move on in life and continue living the way they were before the tests, while the people who fail, are sent somewhere else. No one knows where these people are sent to, but there are many rumors, and none of them are positive. The whole story would follow the upbringing of a teen who fails the tests, and is sent to that location, and is able to break out of it and create an uprising of some sort. Could you tell that I recently watched Mockingjay Part 1?

Sorry for going off on such a random tangent, but I hope my “readers” are able to understand my views on Cultural Relativism, as well as my personal beliefs on morals.

Jake Gregan

"Fate"

"Fate"



     While studying psychology over the summer, I came across a very interesting theory, a self-fulfilling prophecy. "A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior." This relates directly to my reasoning for why people believed so much in fate, 'back in the day'. I like to think that there is a scientific reason behind every "coincidence" that occurs in life. People, back in the day when Oedipus was alive, truly believed what these so-called oracles, preach. By them fully believing that what they are told, they then start the process of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They will subconsciously direct their lives into positions where they are bound to fulfil what the oracle claims is their fate. I am sure that not all people in Oedipus' society meet their, so called, fate, and they are just not important enough to make up a story about. It seems very selfish to believe that everything in the world will bend and change to accommodate for one person's "fate". If that were the case, the world would be filled with more chaos than it already has, and wouldn't possibly be able to occur without people noticing it in their daily lives.

   We all have had our say on what fate is during our discussion, and even I have now shared my point of view. What I would like to focus on for this blog is the bigger picture. Why do we all feel it necessary to express our point of views on very personal topics like that of fate or religion? I find that question and its many answers much more interesting than what one of my classmates claims the meaning of life is. I think it is natural for humans to want to convince others that their beliefs are correct, but why? Because it is the highest act of self justification. People want to think that they are correct, in all instances. They want to think that because it would obviously make them feel better about the world, and themselves as a human in society. I know there is a lot more to this and other actions that cause the belief in fate.

   All in all, Oedipus and his society had a completely valid reason for believing in fate, and by believing in it, with the help of self-fulfilling prophecy, they guarantee it will come true.

First Monthly Blog!

Our society is scared.

I live in a world surrounded by people who are ignorant from the hard truths of life. I envy those people. I would like to start out by saying that I completely understand that I am only 17 years old and have so much more in life to experience. So as I say my whole spiel, take it with a grain of salt, because I could be completely wrong in the way that I see the world. Who knows? And that is amazing to me.

             Now, going back to my initial sentence of our whole society being scared. I believe I can say such a broad statement because I have reasons to believe it. There are many individuals inside a society that are similar to me, and the term society is a broad generalization of the people in our world. With that said, society has slowly been becoming very scared of the world around us. We may enjoy watching the news for some almost grotesque reason, and learning about the terrible things going on around our world, but that is simply surface issues. The mind is simply the most amazing “thing” in the world. Everything you see around you right now, is all created by a brain. Our minds are capable of understanding truths about you, and the world, that are horrible things. In today’s society, we have tended to ignore these truths, and focus more on the positive, shallow things in life.

            It only makes sense to now explain some of those hard truths, in which society is too scared to accept. A good, controversial truth to start out with, is religion. People in today’s society are constantly fearing what happens when they die. In order to cope with this constant feeling of fear of the unknown, religion was created. There was suddenly a happy explanation for what happens after you die. It would be crazy not to believe that! No matter how unrealistic the story is, people were more than willing to accept it to the truth, as long as this benefited the people themselves*. This is a perfect segway into how this relates to a work of literature assigned in class.

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand was personally a life changing novel. I enjoyed the concept of Objectivism and have become a big fan of Rand and her beliefs. I specifically loved the idea that everything you do is solely for your own benefit. I believe that I found that to be true before I read this novel, but after completing it, I had a more complete understanding. This truth, that you are living solely for yourself, could very easily be described as a horribly scary truth. This is why Objectivism as a whole could never be accepted by the majority of society. Too many people in our society can not accept that hard truth, because they are scared to do so. Once you understand and believe in Objectivism, you obtain a completely new perspective on life. For most people, they might assume that this perspective is dark and depressing, but it is only what you allow it to be.

*This obviously is a very small section on religion, but I am sure that I will talk more about it before the end of this year.