Blast!

Blast!

The article speaks mainly about the preservation of the individual and the present. The article begins by stating that it supports the present, not the past, future, nature or men. The article moves on to state that artists should be "unconscious." The article continues, by stating that art should not be trying to change the world but only to represent the world. The article moves on the state that this "representation" will be enjoyed by all kinds of people becuase it focuses on the individual not the people. Following this strive toward the "individual" audience, the article states that everyone is an artist, and that education destroyes true artistry. The article concludes by restating its goals to convert all people to this "art of Individuals." Following the article, Lewis writes his Manifesto. The first part of his manifesto condemns England and America (as seen by the reference to the Floridas), for their destruction of the individual (most prevalent in his idea of a "domesticated policeman"). In the second section of his manifesto, Lewis condemns France for its overly absurd emotion over "obvious facts" ("Papa is wonderful: but all papas are !"). The second section ends with a condemnation of imperialism hinting that nations should not control lands outside of the immediate area of their capital. The third section of the manifesto, is a condemnation of judgement ("snobbery," "ridicule," stylism," etc...). The fourth section is a condemnation toward individuals who enact judgement on others or ask for judgement by others. The fifth section of the manifesto condemns both humor and sports for being "stupid." The sixth and final section of the manifesto is a list of groups of people whom Lewis continues to condemn, including all social classes and "Rousseauisms."

Lewis' fears for the individual match John Berger's same fears about art. Berger fears that the influence of "art historians" actually mystifies individuals and causes them to become confused. For berger it is better for someone to come up with their own opinions than for someone else to give them different opinions. In Blast! Lewis writes about a similar problem were not only art but also identity fall under this problem of mystification and as a result is destroying the ability for men to create art and to remain as individuals.

Are men actually better as individuals, or can a group of free thinking men still be superior to one man?

Edward Said's "States"

Edward Said's "States"

In his "States" Edward Said writes about the "alienated" Palestinians (he includes himself within this group). Said begins the essay by describing the situation of Palesinians, with pictures. Said's description of his third picture summarizes his view, "He seems unsettled, poised for departure... All at once it is our transcience and impermanence that our visibility expresses, for we can be seen as figures forced to push on to another house, villiage, or region. Just as we once were taken from one "habitat" to a new one, we can be moved again" (Said, 573). Said describes the Palestinians as people without a home, or more precisely, people without an identity. Palestine was conquered, and its people were sent into exile out of Israel. Following their exile, the Palestinians spread out to the surounding countries, but these countries would not accept the Palestinians either. According to Said, the surrounding countries either rejected entrance, or impeded the lives of Palestinians. Many Palestinans were even thrown into special camps, away from society. However, despite hardships, and to the disappointment of the surrounding countries, the Palestinians, remained loosely united and "Palestinian." The Palestinians refused to accept the life of the world around them, so the world around them rejected them. Finally, fourty years after Israel's conquest of Palestine, the new generation of Palestinians has been left confused and without identity. They know their ethnicity but do not fully understand their origins. They have no home and are always wandering, and are always oppressed by the local government (mainly in the Middle East). Following his description of the Palestinians' problem, Said talks about the many influences that the Palestinians had on the people around them. (However for the sack of this entry, I shall focus mainly on Said's problem of identity.) According to Said, the real problem of Palestinians is that they have no country to unify with. They are merely a dispersed people with no country. Said talked about many instances where Palestinians tried to unify under surrounding countries, such as Syria and Egypt, but all of these attempts eventually failed the Palestinians as the governments of these countries turned against them.

According to Said, the Palestinians are a people without a country, and also without an identity. Their identity had been stolen from them, and yet they still tried to remain in their lost identity, despite losing their home. At the time of the conquest of Palestine, the industiral revolution had succeeded in changing the identity of a person from their family and their job, to their country. After the industrial revolution a man became an American, an Englishman, or a Palestinian. This system of identity by country, initially worked and unified people together, but in Palestine, as described by Said, this unification became a hard bond to break, and even after the fall of the country, its people still paraded as Palestinians. However, also as described by Said, the loss of their country, will lead to their eventual destruction. They are a people without a country and as such they live only through memory and eventually their children, who never saw Palestine, will lose their identity as they have already lost their country.

Can a man choose his own identity or is he forced to live in the identity that the world gives him?

W.E.B. Du Bois' "The Souls of Black Folk"

W.E.B. Du Bois' "The Souls of Black Folk"

W.E.B. Du Bois' "The Souls of Black Folk" is a description of the problems of African Americans who are trying to find "freedom." Du Bois opens up his essay, by stating how people view him and his people. According to Du Bois the world outcasts blacks and looks down on them. Du Bois continued his argument from this statement by briefly discussing his story about how he personally discovered his own separation. Following his story he transfers his argument by stating that African Americans have two divergent "souls" in one person. The problem then of this double nature is that both souls are equally valuable, but the African still desires to merge the two into one for his own benefit. Du Bois also claims that the world outcasts black for their double nature. This in the end causes blacks to fall into a poor and un-informed social class. Transfering from his discussion of oppression, Du Bois concluded that Blacks truely understood not only the villainy of slavery but also what freedom actually meant. Following his points on freedom, Du Bois continues his essay by stating that black are still denied their promised freedom. This problem of a "false freedom" therefore leads the blacks to continue searching for a way to achieve truely complete freedom. Du Bois continued his idea of searching for a way to freedom, by stating that getting a "white education" would raise the living standards of blacks. After this however, Du Bois states the real problem of Blacks: Not that they are merely poor, but also that they also are uneducated and homeless and the majority of their race is the same. Du Bois therefore concludes from this problem that Blacks should not be forced into "racing" with th rest of the world, but instead given time and support to raise it up. However the main problem for Blacks is the prejudice of the world which looks down upon them and forces them into a worse situation. Du Bois finally concludes his essay by stating that blacks should work together for the advancement of the entire race, and also by discussing the patriotism of African Americans and their slave songs.

In his essay, Du Bois writes a different solution to a similar problem to tha which Karl Marx discussed in his Comunist Manifesto. For Marx the problem was that the middle class (Bourgeois) was oppressing the lower class beyond reason. According to Marx, the only solution to this class stuggle was for the lower class to rise up against and overthrow the middle class. Du Bois faces a similar problem where the blacks are oppressed into a harsly low lower class. However, Du Bois provides a different solution, where the goal is not to overthrow the oppressors, but instead to lift up the African American lower class to complete equality and freedom with the white majority in America.

W.E.B. Du Bois mentioned that African Americans faced a double nature as being both "Africans" and "Americans," and stated that this left blacks in an outcast situation, but would not all foreign immigrants face this same problem (not just Africans)?

Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden."



Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden"

Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" is a satrical poem about imperialism, first calling the white man to accept it, then the "opressed man" to accept it. The first stanza of the poem begins by called to white men telling them to send out their best people to capture and control the "oppressed." The second stanza continues to call of the first stanza to appear morally good but act to oppress the "oppressed" and force them to force for your benefit. The third stanza finishes the call to the white man by claiming that through this imperialistic society all of your physical problems will be solved. The next few stanzas call to the "opressed" to accept their state. The fourth stanza begins this call by describing the poor conditions and limitations of the "oppressed." The fifth stanza continues describing the oppression of the "oppressed" by telling the "oppressed" to accept their unfair jobs and the hatred from their oppressors. The sixth stanza closes the call to the oppressed telling them that, despite all present claims, their burden will wiegh them down past hope, and will withhold their "freedom." The final stanza calls to all people to "Have done with childish days--" The emphasis of the final stanza is that the years ahead of imperialism will be harsh for all people and will show the character of individuals.

Being written after slavery was abolished (written 1899), this poem seems to refer back to slavery as the consequence of imperialism.  For Kipling imperialism leads to slavery, the very evil which Americans had just finished defeating. In the first stanza the slaves are the foreign "captives" which the white men are told to collect and "serve." In the second stanza the white man is told "To seek another's profit, And work another's gain" or in other words to abuse and enslave other people into providing you a profit. The end will therefore lead to the prosperity of the white man (stanza 3) and the enslavement of the "oppressed" man. The fourth, fifth, and sixth stanzas will emphasis how the "oppressed" will be treated, as slaves. They will work as slaves, be hated as slaves, and be oppressed as slaves. The only difference between slavery and imperialism for the oppressed is the name.

If the main action of the middle class is to oppress the lower class for their own benefit, and if this action of oppression can be compared to slavery, then by default could the middle class be called an unjust class?

Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat"

Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat"

Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat" is a story about four shipwrecked sailors who try to reach land with one small boat (a dingy), two weak oars, and a water jug. In the story Stephen Crane gave each of these four men a different identity. There was a cook, a captain (who had only one good arm), an oiler, and a correspondent. While at sea each of these men had their own roles to play for their survival. The oiler and the correspondent took turns rowing, the cook bailed water out, and the captain led them all, while watching their surroundings. Eventually when the four men saw land an tried to approach it, they were oppressed by a variety of waves which they feared would remove (or destroy) their boat. To settle their fears they decided to wait out at sea in hopes that someone from the shore would see them and would come to save them. Eventually someone did see them, and this man seemed to draw other people to their attention, but no one seemed to try to help the shipwrecked sailors, and the crowd instead stood waving at the shove. However soon after the sailors were spotted, night fell, and the sailors felt tired. Luckily for the sailors, the waves died down and the sailors each took turns keeping the dingy afloat. Finally at morning the captain decided that the people on the hore were not going to save them, so he decided to try to reach the shore without help. The four then worked their way to the shore as a group until their boat capsized, after which they individually swam for land until rescued by the surrounding people. Finally at the end of the story three of the four men survived and the oiler drowned.

Perhaps an interesting thing to notice about "The Open Boat" is the multidue of harsh characters of this same story. The first and most obvious of these charaters was nature itself, which Crane personified in the "seven mad gods who rule over the sea." In this story the sea is described in a very gothic manner in which it constantly attacked the boat. At one point Crane described the waves saying that they, "seemed thrust up in points like rocks" (Crane 728). Crane's overall description of the ocean is that it is entirely cappable of killing these men, but due to the mere chance of fate, it does not drown them. The second noticable characters of indifference are the people watching on the shores. At first these men do not try to help the sailors, but instead just wave to them as they (the sailors) face the fear of drowning. Eventually, these men get a change of heart, but not until after the sailors had reached the shore. The final harsh characters of this story are the individual sailors (excluding the captain). While in the boat these sailors are all working as a team caring for each other, but once they left the boat, all of the (excluding the captain) turned to themselves and did not care about the others around them. This fact is most obvious when the correspondent is rescued, and his rescuer askes him what is next to him. The correspondent recognized the figure but instead focused on himself and left the oiler to drown. Thus the conclusion of the story is that men are both insignificant to the world and are also selfish to the point that they will usually not go out of their way to help save another human being.

If the world is supposed to be so indifferent towards these four shipwrecked sailors than why does it taunt them with death? The harsh waves, sleep, birds, and sharks all seem willing and waiting to kill these sailors.

Poems by Stephen Crane



Poems by Stephen Crane

In his poems ("In the Desert," "A Man Said to the Universe," and "War is Kind") Stephen Crane talks about how bad the world is. The poem "In the Desert" is about a creature who ate his heart. When asked if his heart was good, the creature responded by saying that it was bitter, but that he (the creature) liked it that way. "A Man Said to the Universe" is a poem about a man who declared his existence to the universe which responds back to him saying that it (the universe) has no obligation to the man. Finally, "War is Kind" is a poem where Crane tries to make the agrument that war is better for its victims.

Stephen Crane's connecting thread between all three of these poems is that the world is bad. This connecting thread is most obvious in "A Man Said to the Universe," where a man states his existence to the universe, and the selfish universe acknowledged his existence, but still felt no need for anything different. The same thread is also present with a twist in "In the Desert," where a creature eats his own heart and declares it bitter (bad), but the creature also declared that he prefered it that way for two reasons, "because it is bitter and because it is my heart." The creature felt its own selfishness and enjoyed it, and therefore would not give it up or ask that it changed. Finally, "War is Kind" is a poem urging women to stop crying over their lost men because their men are actually terrible murderers and are better off having been killed in the war. Overall, from these three poems, Stephen Crane expresses his belief that the world is inherently evil and prefers it that way.

If we men like the world are inherently evil than why do we have a system of morals? Why do we care what others think of us, if it is better, for us, to fight for ourselves?

Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour"

Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour"

Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour," is the story of a lady, Mrs. Mallard, discovering that her husband is "dead." Because of her heart condition, her friends delayed telling her of her husbands death, in fear of upsetting her enough to kill her. Instead Mrs. Mallard's sister hinted at the death of her husband, Brently Mallard, until one bright, spring day, when the world around Mrs. Mallard seemed happy and prefect, Mrs. Mallard felt that something ominous was going to happen. Finally her sister told her, and after pondering the idea, Mrs. Mallard was happy and began to rejoice her new found "freedom." Mrs. Mallard then went insane and died from her heart condition, "the joy that kills," and then her husband returned home, not having died, not knowing what had happened.

"The Story of an Hour" relates with "The Yellow Wall-Paper" in their goals of the wives. In the "Yellow Wall-Paper," the wife is suppressed by the demands and treatments of her husband, and in "The Story of an Hour," the wife does not care for her husband but instead feels held down by her husband. Both wives find some way out of their "husband-created bondage," through different means, but arrive at the similar results. In "The Yellow Wall-Paper," the wife goes insane and escapes her bondage through "escaping into the wallpaper" In "The Story of an Hour," the wife escapes her bondage through the "death" of her husband. Upon being "released" from bondage, both women become extremely happy. Ironically both women are also likely dead at the end of their stories.

What drives these women to act is such a manner as to try to turn against their husbands? Is it a sense of natural mistreatment, or is there something wrong in the society itself?

Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Yellow Wall-Paper"

"The Yellow Wall-Paper"

Charlotte Gilman's "The Yellow Wall-Paper" is a story of the wife of a doctor. The doctor and the wife decide to rent a (cheap!) house for three months, while they wait for their own house to be built. The doctor's name is John and he has a sister named Jane who watches over both the house and his "sick" wife. According to John, the wife is sick through "over working her mind", but the wife does not agree and instead writes a secret diary which she must keep hidden so that neither John nor Jane can find her thinking or writing. The wife acts against John's wishes in her diary by expressing her ideas and suspicions. This angers the "Enlightened" John who believes only the reasonable to exist (nothing unreasonable exists). However, the story also centers around one room, which during the night, when John is around (occasially also when Jane is around), serves as a prison for the wife. The wife begins by describing the room with its prison like features (there are four windows but they are all tightly barred and the bed is hard and nailed to the floor). However the worst part of the room for the wife is the yellow wallpaper. She described this wallpaper being "a constant irritant to a normal mind" (1664). Throughout the story the narrator (the wife) studies this paper in secret and describes it in her diary. The wife eventually comes to the conclusion that there is a figure trapped behind the wallpaper during the night which during the day roams around the world in one of the four windows of her room. Finally, on the last day of the rent, the wife decided to tear down the wall paper. The wife locked the door while she did this and refused to let John into the room telling him to get the key for himself and finally, when John enters the room, the wife says that she "got out" and John faints.

Another Enlightenment v. Romantic idea clash can be seen in this story. John personifies an Enlightenment man who believes only that which is reasonable exists, however his wife believes the opposite, and believes that there is more than reason. The wife's desire for the unreasonable personifies and persists in the yellow wallpaper. The wall paper is "unreasonable" as it has no design and is harsh to the eye, and also is one of the reasons that the wife persists in writing and thinking. Whenever she stopped thinking she would always return to the strangness of the wallpaper and what "came out of it". Finally in the end the "Enlightened" John falls to "unreasonable" effects. This is an ironic stab against Enlightenment where the man who did not believe in the "unreasonable" fall prey to its ills.

"Now why should that man have fainted? But he did, and right across my path by the wall, so that I had to creep over him every time!" Where is teh narrator during this quote, and why does she add the words, "every time"?

Jonathan Franzen's "Liking Is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts."

Jonathan Franzen's "Liking Is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts."

In this article, Franzen makes a very bold claim which states that liking and being "likable" are bad things for people to to. Franxen begins his argument by discussing what happened when he changed BlackBerries. His first BlackBerry he had for three years and liked it very much, but his liking was one-sided and the BlackBerry only acted as a "likable" object to appeal to him. When the BlackBerry lost its appeal, Franzen, painlessly, replaced it with a newer, more appealing BlackBerry. Following his discussion of hiw BlackBerries, Franzen states that the goal of technology is to replace the natural world (which does not care about who we are) and replace it with something which merely reflects the individual. From this goal of technology, Franzen shifts to love and states that due to technology (mainly Facebook) liking something has become a substitute love. Next, Franzen shifts from the problem of liking and begins discussing the problem of people who make themselves likable. According to Franzen, people who try to be "likable" to you act as mirrors of you and only make your life more pleasurable. Franzen contrasts this idea of a "mirror-friend" by stating that a friend who loves you makes themselves unappealing and acts as a "mub-splattered mirror". The friend no longer shows you through them but instead shows you how they are different. Franzen continues, by stating that "a world of liking is a lie" but that people can fully love each other. According to Franzen, love reveals the lie of technology. According to Franzen love is the complete acceptance of another being(s) (preferably one but can be multiple). Also according to Franzen, to be loved is more difficult than to be liked, because to be liked a person can hide his unlikable qualities and can easily be accepted by everyone, but to be loved a man must show his whole person, perfections and imperfections, and will easily be rejected by most people. Franzen shifts from this point of painful love and states that it is good because it shows that you are living. According to Franzen, men love and make themselves loved have more value than others and those men who refuse love, are "worthless resource wasters." Franzen conludes his article by talking about how he used to "like" nature, but then he found a "love" in birds and left his self-centeredness and changed.  Through this Franzen makes a conclusion that love forces men to turn away from inward thinking away from everything, toward outward being.

Jonathan Franzen and Carr seem to have similar problems with technology. They both fear that it is dehumanizing people. Carr makes this claim against Google when he talks about Google's mission. According to Carr the problem of technology is that it changes the way we think away from a complex  decision making process into a more definite and efficient process which gives no reason for thinking deeply. Franzen states that technology dehumanizes men in another manner, in which it make it harder for them to love, therefore weakening their ability to feel pain and finally taking away their worth as living human beings. According to Franzen pain shows both caring and humanity through the change in devotion of oneself to another being.

Is a man's humanity valued by his ability to love and feel pain?

Jamais Cascio's "Get Smarter"

Jamais Cascio's "Get Smarter"

In his "Get Smarter," Jamais Cascio urges his readers to change themselves and as the title of the article suggests, "get smarter". Cascio begins his "Get Smarter" by mentioning the long passed eruption of Mount Toba. Cascio states that this eruption forced the world into such a harsh climate that it forced humans to evolve or more simply, "to get smarter." Cascio leads this opening idea into a statement that men evolve through the process of becoming smarter. Cascio finally connects this statement of intelletual evolution with modern life stating that if life will be harsh in the future then we as humans must become smarter in order to overcome the harsh environment. Cascio concludes his opening section with another statement in which he gives power to the individual stating that the individual does not need to wait for "evolution" to make humanity smarter but instead can make themselves smarter. Cascio validates this last statement saying that the process of men making themselves smarter (which he calls "intelligence augmentation") has already been smarter through many examples such as: the Internet, science, and drugs. Cascio continues his argument by briefly discussing the advance of technology and how it benefits humanity. Cascio follows this discussion by mentioning the ideas of internet skeptic Nicholas Carr and his article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" as well as Linda Stone who worries that men have obtained a sense of "continuous partial attention," or a sense of having too many activities present at once. Cascio brings these two authors together into an idea which he calls "continuous partial attention-deficit disorder" (which he shortens as "technology-induced ADD"). Cascio finally concludes his response to skepticism by suggesting that technology-induced ADD is only a temporary side effect of the vast amount of available information, and that eventually men will create a solution to this problem and make information gathering more efficient for the individual. Cascio continues his article by telling people how they should become smarter. According to Cascio, due to the constantly changing technology, humans should not try to drastically "update" themselves for fear of becoming quickly "obsolete." Instead Cascio urges people to use "external technology" to boost themselves so that the technology they use is still beneficient and replacable when better advancements are created. Continuing his argument, he discusses the usage of drugs to make people more focused and talks about his own experience with using them. Following his discussion of the advantage of drugs, Cascio discusses the advatages and weaknesses of artificial intelligence. Cascio states that while smarter artificial intelligence is possible it can never exceed the exponenially expanding human mind and that humans are better off with their own reason and with "robots on the side." For Cascio, the robot is just another helpful tool which despite its advances will never exceed the abilities of men. Cascio concludes his argument by describing what he believes life will be like in the future. He believes that in the future men will have greatly overcome "partial attention," will have a larger pool of information to absorb from, and that our intellectual debates and differences will become much more active. Cascio believes that humanity as a whole will inevitably advance and "get smarter" the only question will be that of when and who will "unreasonably" resist.

Cascio seems to discuss many of Nicholas Carr's skepticisms. In his article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Carr addresses many fears toward the growing technology. Carr's main fear is that the internet is changing the way that men think in a way that is destroying their ability to think deeply. Cascio directly responds to this fear by suggesting that the current internet system is still primitive and, due to the large quantiy of information, forces the individual into a sense of "partial attention." Cascio's solution to this side effect is to use what is available until the technology advances allowing men to absorb more information quicker. Carr also fears the achievement of Google's mission statement, "The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people---or smarter." Carr specifically fears that the creation of such a device will replace the human mind with something which only gives answers and does not think deeply about anything. Cascio also addresses the fear of artificial intelligence surpassing the human mind through two descriptions. First, Cascio discusses the advantages of technology which customizes itself for the individual and how it can benefit that same individual through its enhanced knowledge. Then, he states that the human mind is always advancing and getting smarter and will therefore always be better than any artificial mind that we create. ("As intelligence augmentation allows us to make ourselves smarter, and then smarter still, AI may turn out to be just a sideshow: we could always be a step ahead.")

Carr also provides one more criticism of the internet, in which he states that because of the internet's need and desire for money, the internet also innundates individuals with many advertisements and distractions. Therefore due to necessity would not the distractions continue to exist and plague the attention of simple knowledge seekers?

Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

In this one article Nicholas Carr criticises the internet with an answer to his own question, "Is the internet (Google) making us unable to think?" Carr opens us his argument by discussing a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which a man is disabling the memory circuits of HAL a robot with artificial intelligence. HAL's only response to this was his fear and pain as it felt each one of its memory circuits being removed. From this description, Carr moves into his question by stating that he can feel the mind of humanity changing due to internet influence. Carr moves on to state that the internet changes thinking though its processes of quick information. The internet works to shift human thought from a concentrated innundation of focused ideas, into a widely spread surface of ideas that google deems "related". Humans now have to work harder to focus or think deeply on any one subject. Carr describes how Humans now think as "bouncing" from material to material, and concludes by stating that most men cannot or do not read anything larger than a few pages, but instead skim the sources that they find then move one. Carr continues by discussing how technology influences the thought of men. His biggest example this idea of techonolgy reform ing human thought, was the mechanical clock. Carr stated that this modernization reformed human thinking away from the old experiences and senses to a stricter time in which everything occurs at a specific time and also that everything can be measured and tested. Following his discussion on techonolgy, Carr talked about how Frederick Winslow Taylor changed the focus of industry from the benefit of the worker to the benefit and advancement of the factories themselves. Industrial workers soon became merely mechanized workers which only performed simple tasks without thought or extra input. Carr then applies the story of Taylor to Google and states that Google only cares to provide a better mind and a "more efficient" sense of knowledge. This "more efficient" knowledge forces a shift from deep human thought and into a shallower surface thought in which the masses do not true understand anything but merely are given the false illusion through what they have "read". Carr continues his argument by talking about how writing shifted human though away from memory and more dependant on what is written, and finally concludes his argument by rediscussing the scene from 2001 and states that people are now giving away their humanity and trading it for the mind of a machine.

Nicholas Carr's logic in this argument parallels enlightenment though, especially Immanuel Kant's idea that men should think for themselves and should not allow others to think for them. With Carr the problem is that men are not only refusing the think for themselves but are allowing a machine to think for them. This also parallel's with Paulo Feire's problem with the system of education, in that it "mechanizes" human thought and not only divides students from the world but also asserts the superiority of the teacher over the student. The internet does this same thing in that it cuts off men from the depth of the world through constant changing topics, and also asserts itself as the supreme source of knowledge, therefore suppressing its users into a sense that they nkow nothing and the the internet knows all. Finally Carr's ideas also parallel with Michael Foucault's ideas of humanity. Foucault believes that men generally want to give up their freedom and free thought in order to be ruled. This parallels with Carr's problem with Google in that Google's aim is to entirely remove the free thought of the "obsolete" men and to mechanize them into a system of artificial intelligence which "knows everything".

Is Google an avoidable or necessary obstacle in the progression of human thought?

Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Minister's Black Veil"

Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Minister's Black Veil"

In his story, "The Minister's Black Veil", Hawthorne shows an example of how changing one part of a person entirely changes how others view them. This story begins on a normal colonial sabboth worship service. However, much to the dismay of everyone around, the pastor (Mr. Hooper) of the congregation enters the crowd with a black veil over his face. The pastor does all of his normal rutines before the crowd and acts and speaks in exactly the same manner as previously. The only difference between then and now was that now he had a black veil covering his face. As a result the congregation is terrified and begins to wonder why Mr. Hooper would hide his face. They all quickly become nervious and wait to see him remove the veil but he never does such. Even his own wife cannot urge him to take the veil off. After which point everyone has abandoned Mr. Hooper and has left him in his state. Finally at his death, he is asked to take the veil off, at which point he refuses saying that the veil shall never be removed on earth. Angry and curious as to what reason, Mr. Hooper would keep the veil on so long, the pastor who was preparing him for death asked him what Mr. Hooper had done to shame himself that he had to cover his face. Finally as his dying words, Mr. Hooper sat up and said that each person around him had on them a black veil.

Here Hawthorne covers two different ideas. First Hawthorn's "The Minister's Black Veil" is a representation of Poe's idea that "Fear is not of Germany. It is of the mind!" and Emerson's idea of perseption and how we men can only see what our emotions can show us. These idea both come from the same action of the Black Veil. Despite the fact that Mr. Hooper himself did not change at all,besidesthe addition of the black veil. Because of the one element of the black veil, everyone had fear. Everyoe was afraid of what they saw and what it could mean. Here no actual thing is scaring the people but it is the mere action of the people scaring themselves through their own thoughts that leads them to this fear. This fear forces them into the hopes that they might see everything return to normal and that Mr. Hooper might remove his black veil. This never happens but instead, Hooper insists on another idea. Hooper's dying words bring about another interesting thought. Before death Hooper said that he saw upon the faces of everyone around him a black veil. Here Hooper has stated that each person around him hides who they are from each other. The only difference then between Hooper and the people is that Hooper admits that he is hiding something from the world and shows them that there is something hidden. The others around him hide their true selves and instead hide behind an imaginary black veil under which they know that no one can find their true selves. Fear therefore only occurs in this story when the act of hiding seomthing is admitted.

On earth are black veils necessary? Is it possible for one to take his own black veil off or should he continue to hide it forever?

Walt Whitman's "The Wound-Dresser"

Walt Whitman's "The Wound-Dresser"

In his poem, Walt Whitman describes the experience of an old military Civil War doctor.He begins by showing the doctor's sorrow for his patients and describing the outrage of their pain. This doctor is always among the dead and dieing youth of the army. Shifting from his first stanza, Whitman begins to describe how these men die.He states that through their bravery and their high hopes they run quickly into battle and are just as quickly slain and sent to the hospital.He reemphasizes his point of how quick and insignificant each of there actions are by comparing it to an analogy stating that no matter how large a mark they make in the beaches of time, they will eventually be washed away and forgotten.He continues by describing how through constant works of treating the dieing, he (the wound-dresser) no longer misses them and each work that he does becomes a habitual action of which he must continue to perform despite the sad fate that most of his patients will experience. However despite his habitual actions he still maintains a sense of sadness and empathy for each individual.Following these expressions, Whitman re-emphasizes the gruesome work of the wound dresser by describing a few of his patients.Finally Whitman concludes by describing the sorrow which the wound dresser feels following each patient whom the wound dresser tries to help,but most are young and therefore are also too innocent for death,but he still has to move on despite his sorrow.

In this poem, Whitman quite clearly seems to criticize war. This can be seen from a number of different quotes in which Whitman states that despite how great the actions of war seem,they will neither last nor will they be worth the pains that result. At the end of his poem, the Whitman mourns the death of his patients. This mourning emphasizes the outrage of the suffering of these men. He also talks about bravery, which he criticizes by saying,"was on side so brave? the other was equally brave;" (line 8). Here he criticizes the idea of being bravery stating that no one stands out in bravery. He follows this point saying that all of the individuals will then be forgotten. He states this by saying that, "So soon what is forgotten,and waves wash the imprints off the sand. No matter how much these people do, they and their works will still be forgotten eventually. Therefore as long as war persists, the wound dresser will be a sorrowful job in which the wound dresser must work to save but then forget those who died to the "bravery" of war.

If, as Whitman previously stated in one of his poems, all matter eventually returns to its original state and the same men which the wound dresser treats would still die anyway, then why should the wound dresser care about the individuals? Why should he feel sorrow for each of their deaths?

Walt Whitman's "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer"

Walt Whitman's "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer"

Walt Whitman's "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer" is a poem about a man who learns about astronomy. The narrator begins by describing his encounter with the "learn'd astronomer" and how the astronomer tried to explain to him through facts and data what astronomy was. The narrator soon loses interest in astronomy due to the astronomer and decides to figure it out for himself. Then the narrator enters nature and experience it for himself as sees perfection.

Multiple different ideas and parallels fit in with this passage. The first parallel lines up with Berger's "Ways of Seeing" in which Berger states that the problem with art is that people try to explain it to us and thereby corrupt our perception of it and stop us from fully understanding the art. This parallels with the problem of the astronomer. The astronomer continually is stating what he believes to be true and is surpressing the perception of the narrator. However the narrator does not fully fall for this "mystification" because he gets bored and instead goes out to discover it for himself. The fact that the narrator gets bored by the astronomer also brings into parallel transcendental ideas of nature. As Emerson declares in his "Nature", Nature is something that is perfectly true, it needs no explanation because it is its own explanation, and finally that we can only true understand nature through experience. The fact that nature needs no explanation is prevalent in the problem of the learn'd astronomer. In the eye of the transcendentalist the astronomer is redundant because he is merely explaining things which are self evident in nature. This therefore makes him boring and renders him useless. Therefore the narrator goes to nature to experience it for himself. This is how he truely understands nature through his own experience, because he is able to see it with his own eyes, nature's truth can therefore directly enter into him, without the hinderance or mininterpretation of the learn'd astronomer.

Astronomist have many tools with which they use to closely view and study the universe, and have also been studying the stars for many years. Therefore because they can see the stars better, would they not be better sources for understanding the stars than one's own personal experiences?

Resistance to Civil Government



Henry David Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government"

In his "Resistance to Civil Government", Henry David Thoreau gives an argument for why the power of government should be weakened and also for what citizens of government should do to fix their government. Thoreau begins his argument by stating his belief that the best government is the one which never governs. He defends his point by comparing government to a standing army and says that the standing army is a part of the "standing government" which works to suppress its people. Thoreau continues his point on oppressive government by stating that government does not do what the people do and therefore only oppresses the people and stops them from achieving even greater goals. After finishing his point on the oppressive government, Henry David Thoreau, however steps back from his original claim by saying that he understands that it is impractical to remove all government at the moment and therefore we should strive for a "better" government. He then leads into a discussion of morality and conscience stating how it comes from the masses, and also that not business can have conscience no matter what kind of people it has. Following this, Thoreau begins to talk about armed troops. Thoreau states that armed troops have no conscience due to their business, and also due to their training also have no humanity, because they follow in perfect submission to their government. Following from his point about the army, he continues to say that all government officials are inherently evil and should instead resist the government and give up their offices. Thoreau continues his argument by bringing up the issue of slavery and stating that he should not have the same government as slaves. He then changes topic slightly by bringing up the American Revolution and talking about the reasons that the colonists turned agaisnt Britian. Thoreau uses this topic of the Revolution to draw to a final claim about how the government "enslaves" its people and turns the position of "honest" men as the attackers or "invaders" who do not actually own the land that they wish to defend. Thoreau continues his argument by stating that men do not always do the "right" thing and instead tend to prefer other things. He uses Massachusetts merchants as an example stating that they only oppose abolistion because it would bring difficulty to southern farmers which would cause them (merchants) a lesser amount of profit than if things remained the same. Continuing in his discussion, Thoreau talks about how men state that they will do the right thing, but will not actually do what they say they will do, but instead will wait for others to do it first. He concludes this point by discussing how the voting system is flawed and how men should not vote just to vote, but instead should use voting to do what is right (be the one man who votes against slavery). Thoreau continues his argument by stating that even by voting for president you are submitting to the authority and oppressiveness of the government. He continues by saying that few "men" exist in America, and that those beings of America care only for their own betterment and good will. Thoreau continues by stating that it is not a man's job to end injustice but to make sure that they do not perform it. After that, Thoreau discusses the irony of how people who disapprove of government petition before acting. Following these points Thoreau goes on to discuss unjust laws and parts of government. He talks about how government forces its reforms to be worse than its evils. This makes it hard for wise individuals to organize and movement to reform the government laws. Thoreau continues saying that government actually hates its wise minority and works to remove it. he concldues this point by stating how me should go about reforming unjust laws. If the law is necessary, then it should be left alone and hoped to be made just later. If the law has some independent factor which only applies to it, then it may be reformed. Finally if the law causes you to perform injustice, then men should refuse to follow the law. Thoreau continues his argument by stating that instead of trying to do everything, men should focus on doing "something", so that they cannot so "something" wrong. Thoreau continues restating that people should not wait for others to act but should instead be the first ones to act, and concludes this point by stating, that in a government that unjustly puts a man in prison, prison in infact the place for the "honest" man. Because in prison a man is not a supporter of his government but instead is an opponent. Thoreau continues by talking about a "peaceful revolution" and restates how government officials shoul give up their offices. He then states that the more money men have the more controled they are by the government and their possessions and also the less "virtue" you have. Following his denounciation of money, Thoreau discusses the problems of taxes and states that he should not pay taxes which support services which he does not use, such as the church and the polls. Following his statement of not paying his poll tax, he opens up and tells his own captivity narrative in which he was put in prison into a place in which the government could only punish him physically for his intellectual complaints. Thoreau puts himself above the government stating that because the government is not intellectually superior to him, they instead act physcially superior. Thoreau portrays prison, not only as a bad place for punishment (they don't punish people well), but also as a place for people who are unjustly sent there. He makes this connection through the man whom he shared a room with in prison. Finally in the end of his captivity narative, he is angry because someone paid for his release, which thereby inhibited his reform attempts. Following his story of jail, Thoreau concludes his argument and states that government is only as strong as men allow it to be, and also that men therefore haev the responsibility to change government into a "better" form, until it reaches the perfect state in which it is no long seen nor needed.

Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government" has many Enlightenment aspects to it. Thoreau's ideas about the power of the people clearly parallels to an Enlightenment idea. Both characters speak clearly about how men not only had the power but also the right to rebel against their oppressive government. However, Thoreau takes this a step further by stating that all government is inherently oppressive and thereby should be reformed gradually until the active government no longer exists and its people can rule themselves. Thoreau specifically parallels many Enlightenment thinkers, in order to strengthen his own points. Thoreau uses the American Revolution especially to make a significant parallel in which he states that all active government is inherently oppressive and acts to suppress, enslave, and alienate its people.

Many questions could be asked in response to "Resistance to Civil Government".

If government should not oppress its people than what should it do when its people oppress each other, such as during the Gilded Age when the railroads and larger industries greatly oppressed their consumers?

If people should not have a "standing government" or a "standing army" than what can it due when it is attacked by foreignors, or bandits? The people themselves would not be strong enough or have the proper training to defend themselves, and as a result to their improper training and equipment (as they most likely would also not have teh equipment for fighting either) to defend themselves or their lands. The entire "oppressive" cycle of government would then repeat itself.

The Fall of the House of Usher

Edgar Allan Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher"

Edgar Allan Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" is the story of an enlightenment-type charater entering into the old house of his friend Roderick Usher in hopes of helping him. The "House of Usher" respresents two different things. The "House of Usher" can be used to refer to both the building itself and the family of the Ushers. However their remains only one surviving member of the family of the Ushers, and as such the lone member is named the "House of Usher". Roderick Usher is the only remaining member of the old House of Usher being that his entire family including his twin sister had died. Something strange happens to Roderick in fact. Only a few years after his childhood, Roderick begins to age, and takes on the appearance of a weak and pale man. Roderick also changes in that his senses grow weaker and he can only be appealed by the most grim and ghastly of sounds, tastes, and sights. The final and most important of Roderick's changes was that of fear. Roderick was constantly filled with fear of something unknown to the narrator. These same charateristics were also present in the build itself of the House of Usher. The building itself looked old, broken, decaying, and grim. Finally when the narrator described the building itself he said that he could feel that something was wrong with the presence of the building but he could not understand it.

The narrator came to the House of Usher at the request of Roderick, who wanted the narrator to help and support him after the death of his sister, and to help him cure the "disease" of the House of Usher. The narrator tried to help Roderick by a series of methods such as painting and reading, but Roderick could not be cured of his fear and grim attitude. The narrator also helps Roderick put his "dead" sister in a secure vault where she would wait for two weeks until being buried. Eventually, one stormy night strange sounds are heard throughout the house and Roderick comes, with fear, to meet with the narrator. The narrator decides to try to calm Roderick by reading him the first book he finds, "The 'Mad Trist' of Sir Launcelot Canning". Soon the sounds of the book come to life and as the narrator reads the book, Roderick and the narrator both become scared until Roderick finally confesses that his sister in fact is not dead and is "living". At that moment Roderick's sister bursts through the wall covered in blood and kills her brother. The narrator then runs away terrified. Finally when the narrator turns around, a safe distance outside, A vertical crack opens up, with a bloody tint (from the moon), and the entire House of Usher falls and is broken.

The story of "The Fall of the House of Usher" is a gothic, anti-enlightenment story, which clearly gives the idea that not only are there some things which are not entirely explainable but that some things want to destory you. In this story, both one man and his sister age rapidly and begin to suffer strange unexplianable symptoms. The sister seems to die. She appears and acts dead at first, but suddenly one night she breaks out of her locked coffin and locked iron door, and weakly arrives in the room where Roderick and the narrator are standing which she breaks a way open through the wall and kills her brother. This is entirely unexplainable in which a dead figure can not only break out of her own prison, but also can have the strength to destroy a wall and kill her brother. The final unreasonable event of the story was the eventual fall of the House of Usher. The House itself was riped apart from top to bottom by a crack that was unnoticable at first but after the death of Roderick, it opened itself quickly until the House of Usher was gone. The entire story builds up to the fear of this one night in which the most unreasonable happens in an attack against the one who knew it would happen. Not only are some things unable to be fully understood but these unknowable things also want to kill you and you cannot stop them.

This idea of the unknowable wanting to harm you parellels with Poe's "The Raven" in which the raven's presence not only brings harm to the narrator but also is certain and can never be avoided or removed. Here the fear and fall of the House of Usher cannot be stopped. Lady Madeline of Usher will come and kill her brother, and Roderick cannot stop her.

If some things are truely unknowable and also harmful to us, then how can we hope to avoid these things in hopes of survival? Are we just to be left in hopelessness to accept out eventual death?

Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven"

Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven"

Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven" is a story of a man (This story is written in first person and as such the main charater of the story could be either Poe himself or another imaginary character whom Poe has created and given identity through his writing.) who is looking back on a memory of his first encounter with a mysterious raven who appeared outside his door. At first this raven appears as a visitor waiting outside, quietly calling to the narrator, through a simple knock. The narrator responds to the call of his visitor by opening his door to greet them but he sees nothing but the raven, and closes the door. The same call of the raven is repeated and the narrator answers it by looking out his window in hopes that it is his lost love Lenore. upon opening his window he finds nothing except the raven, and decides to greet the raven as a visitor and talk with it. The Narrator first asks the raven its name and then a series of other questions to which the raven relies only with the word "Nevermore". The story concludes after the narrator becomes angry at the raven when he asked if he (the narrator) might ever see Lenore again, the raven told him "Nevermore".

Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven" provides in great detail a personification of a memory (especially the memory of a loved one). In the beginning of the story the narrator is longing for a woman whom he greatly loved but is no longer with him. As he looks at what he has left of his love Lenore, he hears a quiet knock on his door. The narrator answers this knock and as previously stated sees the raven "and nothing more." However Poe gives a significant description of memories by stating that the narrator first saw, "Darkness there, and nothing more" then saw the raven "Merely this, and nothing more". These two phrases give a personification of emptiness to memories. Memories are dark figures of nothingness which work only to bring you sorrow.

Following the scene at the door, the raven makes another call which the narrator responds to just as teh first as if it were made by a visitor but this time he opened his window instead of his door. This action gives memories another set of personifications. Memories now also appear as persistent figures which continually come to you in order to show you their meaning and bring you their sorrow.

Following the window scene, the narrator begins a dialoge with the bird in which he asks a series of questions to which the bird always responded saying "Nevermore". The first of these questions was his name. Having the name "Nevermore" showed not only the emptiness of memories but also the simple fact that you can never go back and experience what youlong for anymore. Your memories are merely vague remnants of a past which you may never see again. The second question empasises the persistance of memory as when asked when he shall leave the raven again said, "Nevermore." Poe concludes his poem by reemphasizing his previous personifications. Memories are only sad reminders of a better past of which you may never return, and no matter how hard you try memories will always remain, "Only this, and nothing more".

In response to Poe's "The Raven", one could ask the question: If the memory of a long lost lover will bring so much sorrow why should men submit to love in the first place? Could Poe with this poem be leading to an even larger idea of which the world is one large and complicated trap with works only to bring you sorrow?

James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans (Indians)

James Fenimore Cooper's Defence of the Indian

In his novel, The Last of the Mohicans, James Fenimore Cooper not only provides an example for and American novel, but also provides a minor defence for the humanity of Native Americans. James Fenimore Cooper begins his story during the historic conflict between Britian and France, the French and Indian War, in which Native Americans were used by both sides. Within this conflict, Cooper begins his story from a relatable perspective, in which three of his main characters (Duncan, Cora, and Alice) are to be escorted through an unfamiliar climate by one of the only people who could already know the land, an Indian runner. Cora and Alice are the daughters of the British Officer Munro who at first along with Major Duncan Heyward, distrust the Indian runner, who latter in the story is named Magua.

Although all three of these characters have their doubts about Magua, Cora, the braver of the two sisters, asks a question which begins to bring humanity to Native Americans. Cora asks, "Should we distrust the man because his manners are not our manners, and that his skin is dark?" This single question opens a large amount of argumentation. This statement, not only sarcastically, but also directly, defends Native American humanity. The first point of defence is the clear and dirrect point in which Cooper calls Magua, an Indian runner, a man. In this one word James Fenimore Cooper has used Cora to accept the humanity of the Indian runner. Upon closer inspection, this question can be asked not only to the characters of the story, but also to the reader. Cooper in essence asks the question of whether a man's backround and habitual actions determine his humanity. Can a man be distrusted or lessened by his background as an Indian or his difference. That is the question Cooper asks through his character Cora. The rest of Cooper's story continues with an answer to that question.

Throughout the story, Cooper points out the differences between the Indians and the white men. Cooper specifically points out how the Indians are better than the white men, in warfare. He calls the Indians quick and "quiet footed" in which not only are Indians quick to move and attack but they also are so silent that hundreds of them can move through the woods without anyone noticing. The Indians also have much stronger senses (especially sight and hearing) than the white men, with which they can track each other down as quickly as they can run. Cooper's reasoning for all of this manifest itself in Hawkeye a colonial hunter who lives in the wilderness with two Indians of the Mohican tribe, Chingachgook and Uncas (the son of Chingachgook). Hawkeye, having lived with these two Indians for many years had become like them and through practice he had greatened his senses. In return for the teachings of the Indians, Hawkeye taught Chingachgook and Uncas how to properly use guns and also Chirstianity. By this process, Hawkeye became a "white-Indian", and made himself along with his two friends not only the most important heroes of the story but also an example for Americans of what they can do if they accepted the Indians and human beings and lived with them in peace.

Cooper however also shows the difference between Indians throughout his story. As soon as Hawkeye and his friends meet Duncan, he distrusts Magua, not because of Magua's humanity, but because of his appearance and the alliegence which goes with it. This leads to Magua's choice to run away after which, Hawkeye decides to lead the group to safety, and after much difficulty they arrive at Fort William Henry which is under siege. Eventually Munro (who was leading the defence of William Henry) surrendered and was given the right to march his men unopposed, out of William Henry. The Indian savages helping the French did not accept this very well and attacked the exposed British troops. massacring them due to their lack of morality, but Cooper does claim that the Indians have some morality in the few people who survived walked through the battle untouched. Alice and Cora being defenceless women hide under the angelic character David Gamut who sang throughout the entire battle and whom the Indians could not touch. The second major survivor was Munro who in his love for his daughters moved bravely through the battle, untouchable. The final act of humanity shown in this battle was the act of Magua who saved David, Alice, and Cora from the fight. Magua cared about Cora and her sister despite Cora's judgement of him. Magua could have let this Cora die in the fight but instead he saved her and brought her to safety with him.

Following this tragic massacre, Hawkeye, Duncan, Uncas, Chingachgook, and Munro head after Magua in an attempt to free Cora and Alice. Soon these characters caught up to Magua who was with his own tribe and eventually Heyward manages to free Alice and David from Magua but Cora remained captured. Finally Uncas, Hawkeye, and Heyward led a second tribe of Indians to war against Magua. These Indians are greatly successfull and wipe out Magua's tribe. The final sense of this battle featured Magua on a high cliff giving Cora one last chance to be his wife. Cora again refused but Magua could not kill her because of his love. at this point Uncas charges onto the cliff in a passionate form of love. At this instance not Magua but his fellow Indian stabs Cora, which weakens Uncas to the point where he is also slain by Magua. Magua finally dies after a failed attempt at escape in which he is shot by Hawkeye.

Cooper's answer to his own question is that Indians are men in a similar way to white men. Indians however are trapped in their own free will and although they can have an idea of the truth (Christianity), they can also have an idea of pure evil, in which they speak and act evil things. This comparision parallels to Jonathon Edward's teachings in which John Edwards told people they as well as Indians are actively hanging over a pit in which they can easily turn to and fall in. According to Jonathon Edwards Indians and white men are equal in their free will and also in their fate (of being in the destructive hands of an angry God who enjoys their downfall). Cooper mainly focuses on puting Indians and white men together in a sense of humanity. According to Cooper the Indians may choose to act differently but deep down can easily be human.

Upon reading James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans, one could ask the question: In his story James Fenimore Cooper describes Indians as having the choice of being good or evil, because Indians and white men are both human. Could a white man also have this choice of becoming as evil as an Indian, and if so can this white man redeem himself?