Lily's Plight

Lily used a good image to describe her plight as a woman in her time period she says, " I have tried hard, but life is difficult and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent exsistence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else. What can one do when one finds that one only fits into one hole? One must get back into it or be thrown out into the rubbish heap-and you don't know what its like in the rubbish heap" (327). Lily was raised in a wealthy home and never had to work. She fits this image well. She was meant to be a particular cog: a wealthy house wife who would not have to provide for herself and just throw houise parties. When she did have to work, then she had problems. She was not used to the stress of working and could not handle it. She could not hold a job for a very long time. Women of her time suffered this plight because they were not expected to work and to provide for themselves and when they had to, they couldn't. Also the women of this time probably felt under valued because they didn't have many places where they could put effort into accomplishing something that felt rewarding besides throughing a good house party or catching that rich husband.

Lily and Wealth

"...she works like a slave preparing the ground and sowing her seeds, but the day she ought to be reaping the harvest, she oversleeps or goes off on a picnic" (198). This quote references to how Lily seems to avoid completing her quest in courting a wealthy hucband. Maybe she knows deep down in side that this is not what she really wants. She denies Rosedale and she doesn't finish the job on Percy Gryce. She also tries to support herself through hat weaving. Although at the end of the story she considers marrying Rosedale, she never goes through with it just like the other times she has thought of marrying and kills herself instead. Lily seems to have wanted more in life than to just play the submissive role of a wealthy house wife. She seems to have wanted something more than the superficial wealth that she would get by marrying the rich men. Lilly wanted to accomplish something herself. "... it soon became clear to Lily that she was to enjoy only the material advantages of good food and expensive clothing; and though far from underrating these, she would gladly exchange them for what Mrs. Bart had taught her to regard as oppurtunities" (38). An oppurtunity is a vague word, but she clearly wants something above all the money, fancy homes and prestige of being wealthy; she wants something more out of life.

Gus Trenor and Lily Bart

It seemed through reading various parts of this book that Gus was using the fact that he was providing Miss Bart with monetary substinence to make advances toward her from the beginnning of their close association. In one scene, "[Lily] let her eyes shine into his with a look that made up for the handclasp he would have claimed if they had not been alone..." (96). Although holding hands may seem innocent, it is awkward for a married man to do this to a attractive, young woman without romantic thoughts in mind. Repeatedlty Gus makes remarks about how his wife is demanding and unreasonable and does not understandthe value of money, so it is understandable that after becoming disillusioned with his wife, that Gus would try and find a new women to be the object of his affections.

Rich Do Not Have Priorities Straight

Miss Farish, one of the wealthy, social elite in this novel was trying to make a charity. However, this charity did not really help those in need. The organization served to help working women becasue these women are "unfortunate" because they have to work for a living. "The object of the association was to provide comfortable lodgings...where young women of the class employed in downtown offices might find a home when out of work or in need of rest..." (116). Is this really needed for working women? They have money and they can support themselves. Working women are not suffering and homeless. If Farish really wanted to be useful and do something productive, she would help people living in slums that are having trouble putting food on the table and making a living. Unfortunately, however, the rich of this class seem to look down on people like this. For example, the woman who sees Miss Bart, Mrs. Haffen is looked down apon for her appearance and she is considered dirty.

Lily

According to Selden, "The people who take society as an escape from work are putting it to its proper use; but when it becomes the thing worked for, it distorts all the relations of life (72)." Selden represents everything that Lily is not. Lily believes in money and the importance of class. On the otherhand, he says, "My idea of sucess, personal freedom...From everything-from money, from poverty...from all the material accidents" (70). Selden is different from Lily, but he is attractive to her. Lily abandons the cause of Mr. Gryce for Selden. At the same time however, she also wants the rich life. She is amibvalent in her feelings on the direction of her life. It is strange how throughout the novel Lily is indecisive in her actions.

"...The means of labor and the external conditions of labor belong to private individuals" (Marx 298). Capitalists provide a means of substinence for the proletariat because they control the means of labor. For the proletariat to live, they must use this means of substenance. Therefore, the proletariat is bound to this capitalist system. To Marx, this capitalist system is a cruel system whioch has no escape. The proletariat is not enslaved like previous peoples in that the bourgeoise own them. The proletariat can quit there job and leave anytime they want to. However, the proletariat need a substinence and this is what keeps them under the thumb of the capitalists. This freedom the factory workers and laborers appear to have exists only ijn name. They have no real freedom. The capitalists know that the laborers will stay under their contorl because they have no other means of surviving. The bourgeoise help the proletariat to just barely survive so the children will have to work. Then, these children will be uneducated and they will be only able to work factory jobs. This will go on in a continuing cycle unless something in society is radically changed. This way the factory owners have a fresh supply of workers every generation to replace the retirees and produce for the capitalists.

More Work=Less Happiness

According to Marx, "... the misery of the worker is inversley proportional to the power and volume of his production..." (58). Marx seems to be saying that a workers unhappiness is a product of his production. I see this especially in the case of demanding jobs like doctors and lawyers. It seems the more one works and the more he produces, the less happy he will become. He is ignoring his humanity and in the desire just to gain commodities and material goods. It is unatural to subject oneself to eighty hour work weeks and 12 hour work days. Although Marx is arguing in terms of the proletariat and how he does this just as a means of substinence and is not making nearly as much money as a doctor or a lawyer, the same idea resonsates with them.

Truth exists outside mind

Going back to the example of the inverted image in the retina on page 111, I found a quote which I think most clearly and simply describes Marx's way of philosophizing. He states, " Consciousness does not determoine life, but life determines consciousness (112). This sumarizes Marx's whole argument in that section of the book. Marx talks about how heaven descends to earth in the Young Hegelian Philosophy. He discusses how these Young Hegelians make assumptions based on religion. Marx believes his reasoning based on production is better because there is evidence that supports it and he makes no assumptions. He is saying life does not determine consciousness because religion and what is in our mind cannot determine what is outside our minds in reality. This important because whenever we are trying to make an argument we can only use actual evidence.

man is not the only being that produces

Marx states that, " [Man] begins to destinguish himself from the animal the moment he begins to produce his means of substinence...By producing material food, man inderectly produces his material life itself" (107). I disagree with this statement because technically, man is not the only organism that produces his own food, his "means of substinence" (107). Bees make their own honey and hives. Bacteria process substances in their environment with enzymes to produce food for themselves. Plants produce their own food, glucose through photosynthesis. Thus, there are many example of animals that can produce their own "means of substinence" (107).

Civilization

Marx states, "The bourgeoisie...compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compells them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves."(162). I found this interesting because this work was written by English Communists commentung on english society and how it developed. These English Communists have the same ideas that Ghandi had about the word "civilization". They both agree that civilisation has a connotation held by many of the bourgiose class or western capitalists: the degree to which a state has been mechanized and has been modernized. A society would be considered barbarous not based on its values, but on how technologically advanced it had become.

Marx and Machinery

Marx's ideas about machinery seem to parallel Ghandi's. Acccording to Marx, "[Man] becomes an apendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him (164). Ghandi also believes that machinery is not good for man because it enslaves man. Marx says that machine enslaves man so much that man actually becomes a part of the machine.

Following Varna

I fpound it vey interesting how Ghandi discussed Varna. Going to catholic school most of my life, I never really learned about different religions. I feel like the hindu religion relates a lot to what Nieztsche said about the development of standards through the noble. The shudra was considered the lowest class while the highest class was considered the brahmin. What i found particularly interesting that the religion requires that individuals stay within their varna. According to Ghandi, "...the law of varna means that everyone shall follow as a matter of dharma-duty- the hereditary calling of his forefathers...(219). Nietzsche's idea that the noble class determines religous beliefs and standards through social classes seem to apply here.

benefiting the community

According to Ghandi, "We become doctors so that we may obtain honors and riches(34)." He later states, "...the lawyer or doctor ought by practising his profession to earn only a living wage...society needs the lawyer or doctor even as it needs the shoemaker and the carpenter(232). Ghandi believes that the only reason one would consider studying to be a doctor is for his own benefit: to amass wealth. Ghandi says that, "Knowledge truly so called is intended for one's salvation, that is to say, service of mankind(233)." Ghandi believes that the goal of education would not be to amass riches if a high payed profession such as a doctor was payed the same as other professions were. Ghandi critisizes the western goals of education because he believes that they are self serving. According to Ghandi, "Whoever has a desire to render service will certainly try to equip himself with the requisite knowledge, and his knowledge will be an ornament to himself as well as to society(233). He believes that if one wants to truly benefit the community, he will study for a positiion that will help others than himself. Ghandi thinks that the each person has a role in society which is used to benefit the communtiy. This role is his varna. ghandi believes that if everyone follows his oen varna and is satisfied with what he has then there will be peace in the community.

Non-violence

Ghandi states that, " My life is dedicated to service of India through the religion of non-violencen which I believe to be the root of Hinduism"(101). Ghandi links his idea of non-violence to the national religion of India, Hinduism. In this statement, Ghandi makes it obligatory as a faithful hindi and indian to follow his principles of non-violence. He thinks that anyone can participate in non-violence and claims that, "the religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the rishis and the saints. It is meant for the comon people as well (99). Ghanid claims that this non-violence that is used in passive resistance has always been a part of india's tradition. He says, " satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering (99). I thought this was very clever of Ghandi to relate his ideas of non-violence and passive resistance to indian culture and religion. Ghandi shows the average indian that non-violence is not just a method to beat the english but it is a part of them and their history. They would especially want to use non-violence which is an indian ideal in the defense of the nation of India.

Idealism

Ghandi's plans for the home rule of india are very idealistic. In theory they might work, but in practice, they might not be as successful. Ghandi states, "Our triumph consists in thousands being led to the prisons like lambs to the slaughter-house"(143). When Ghandi makes this statement he is referring to how the indians must show peaceful resistance and let the guards arrest them when they refuse to follow english made laws. How is it possible to instill this discipline in the masses. If many people were being arested at once, there would be riots. I just do not understand how ghandi could convince so many to put themselves through the ordeal of going to prison. Even the ideals they are fighting for are not very satisfying. Ghandi wants to rid India of the conveniences of the West. Ghandi states that, "Railways accentuate the evil nature of man. Bad men fulfill their evil designs with greater rapidity"(24). Can Ghandi really remove the railways that improve the commerce of India? Railways are evil? They are just an object. An object can be used for evil purposes, but it isn't evil in itself. I think Ghandi thought too much about how to do things in general without actually trying to test them out.

Newspapers

I disagree with Ghandi on his idea about what a newspaper should be he states, " One of the objects of a popular newspaper is understand popular feeling and give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments..."(5). My understanding of a newspaper has always been that it should be display the sentiments of the populace, but it should be impartial. It should not arouse desirable sentiments. I think what Ghandi is referring to is spreading propaganda. This is not done in the spirit of free ideas.

The fortunate vs. unfortunate

Often throughout The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche discusses two distinctive groups: the fortunate, well-off, nobles, etc... and the unfrotunate, downtroden, the commoners etc... Nietzsche argues that "[priests] are all men of ressentiment, physiologically unfortunate and worm-eaten...inexhaustible and insatiable in outbursts against the fortunate and happy...(124). In this instance, he describes the priest as someone who alters the "food chain". By making the well-off (whatever that means) appear undesirable in some way, he can make the less-well off feel better about themselves. Thus, he makes the well off feel flawed. I agree in society there may be some sort of "food chain" even thought noblity does not exist in our time. Certain wealthy people, attractive people, more athletic people are held in higher esteem than others that have less of one of these desired qualities. But, priests do not downgrade simply one of these qualities, they preach against using these advantages well-off people have in an abusive way. Preists argue that these advantageous qualities are not evil in themselves, but could be used for a greater good to help others.

Priestly Asceticism

Nietzsche continues to denounce priestly asceticism saying, "... such a self-contradiction as the ascetic appears to represent, 'life against life,' is, ... a simple absurdity(120). He argues that priestly asceticism is contradictory to human nature because it inhibits our natural feelings and desires. He argues that living one's life against his natural instincts is wrong. I disagree with this idea because I think that certain inhibitions enhance our nature. A basic example would be abstaining from drugs. Drugs may be appealing to our nature and be stimulating, but they cloud our perception. When we don't take drugs, we are much more productive, healthier and happier people.

I also think having the ability to control our nature is what makes human nature distinctly human. Animals cannot control their instincts. Humans control where and when they go to the bathroom, when they sleep and other behaviors. Animals on the other hand just react to stimuli. They flee if there is a predator, they eat when hungry , they defecate where they want and they mate whenever and wherever they want. There are no rules and restrictions to limit behavior in animals. I think if we indulged in our desires, we would actually be going against human nature and become more like animals. Thus, when Nietzsche criticizes priests for preaching to go against one's natural desires, I think he is criticizing human nature instead of protecting it.

Nietzsche explains, "[Christians] are miserable, no doubt of it, all these mutterers and nook counterfeiters...they tell me their misery is a sign of being chosen by God; one beats the dogs one likes best; perhaps this misery is also a preperation, a testing, a schooling,...something that will one day be made good with huge payments of gold, no! of happiness"(47). Nietzsche is discussing the Christians ideas about what action to take when one is wronged. He is saying that Christianity tells us to turn the other cheek. Nietzsche believes that this is weakness. Christians turn the other cheek beacause they cannot fight back. My problem with Nietzsche's thinking is that he reduces people to the "weak" and the "strong". It's as though people are like animals to Nietzsche in natural selection. The more fit species overtakes the less fit and so on. Again, I don't see this in human nature. Part of what separates humans from animals are abstract concepts like compassion and understanding. I feel that inb general, most people do not jump to take advantage of the weak. They would instead go and try to help others. We cannot say this of everyone. Of course their are those in society who do go after others and try to take advantage of them in one way or another. But, for the most part, I feel that people in our society care about one another and are more likely to help one another than to hurt one another.

Birds of Prey

Nietzsche states that scientists believe that, " ... the strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb - for thus they gain the right to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey."(45). I think what Nietzsche is saying with this bird of prey-lamb analogy is that the strong take advantage of others beacause it is a part of their nature. When Nietzsche states that "...they gain the righ to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey' he is saying that scientists are wrong for trying to change the nature of the strong. In my opinion the strong should not take advantage of the weak. This is because no one could ever be the strongest person. Therefore, one will always be living in fear of the stronger person that could take advantage of them. It would be better, to get rid of this fear by everyone respecting each other. If we justify the strong taking advantage of the weak what kind of society would we have? Everyone would always be looking over their shoulder. No one would trust each other.

Atheism

According to Nietzsche, " ... [man] ejects from himself all his denial of himself, of his nature, naturalness, and actuality, in the form of an affirmation, as something existent...as God..."(92). Nietzsche believes that the concept of God is very distant from man and in fact the exact opposite of man. Nietzsche believes that God violates man's nature and that being Christian violates ones true nature. I don't think being Christian goes against one's nature. Man's nature is not to steal, kill, lie and cheat. I know I have no way to prove this, but I think people have more of a judeo-christian nature than Nietzsche thinks. All the time there are random acts of kindness during tragedies and disasters. I think Nietzsche is overly cynical.

Guilt

In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche associates appreciation of ancestors as gods with a feeling of guilt. This guilt is what the present generation owes the first generattion for the creation of their society. I disagree with this viewpoint for Christianity. This may be true asian religions where ancestors are worshipped. In Christianity, we don't worship Adam and Eve. God is our god. According to the bible, Adam and Eve are our ancestors. According to Nietzsche, " The conviction reigns that it is only through the sacrafices and accomplishments of the ancestors that the tribe exists-and that one has to pay them back with sacrafices and accomplishments : one thus recognizes a debt that constantly grows greater, since these forebears never cease, in their continued existence as powerful spirits, to accord the tribe new adavantages and new strength(89).

Nietzsche uses analogy of Heraclitus

Heraclitus was a mythical greek figure who was punished to role a rock up a hill that always rolled back down for eternity. Nietzshe uses this analogy with religion, because he believed that religion was futile. Nietzshe states that "[man] gives rise to an interest, a tension, a hope, almost a certainty, as if with him something were anouncing and preparing itself..."(85). Nietzsche believes that man prepares himself during this life to gain eternal life. He mentions the Heraclitus analogy to imply that this effort is futile. Nietzshe does this because he was an athleist and because he was against all religion.

Race Association in The Genealogy of morals

Nietzsche discusses the different inabitants in italy and how even looks come into play with good and evil. Blond haired people were considered "fair" or good and dark haired people were bad. They were unlike the"fair" haired nobles. This an example of the nobility judging themselves as good and the outsuders as evil.

Father of all evil

i was surprised when nietzsche referred to god as the father of all evil. In modern times it may not be surprising, but in Nietzsche's time people in general were more religous. Im sure this caused an uproar during Nietzsche's time.

Nietsche

Throughout the reading for this friday, Nietszche talks about how the words associasted with good come from what the ability considered good for them and not the common man. For example, when one says something was a noble deed, they mean it was honorable and good. However, noble is derrived from nobility and this supports Nietszche's argument.

Annie

I watched the preformances at the Musicians Institute. i thought it was creative to take the song "Smooth Criminal" from Alien Ant Farm and make a poem out of it. Personally I don't really like the song, but it takes a lot of creativity and talent to write a poem to the beat of the song and make it funny. Heres the song on you tube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxeNZOLNh4c

Funny poem

I thought one of Rives' poems was pretty funny. It was the one about the balloon people. i thought he was pretty creative to take what he saw in that picture and come up with that crazy story about kite people and baloon people. He talked about them like they actually existed. He says," This was the temple that they built, and it was here that they worshipped (Ransacked and made unholy by the Kite People in the Second Consecutive Year of Low Wind.)." i never would have come up with that story from that picture. i just would have thought the shack was a shack.

What I relate to in Tao Te Ching

i related to the quote, "Die without perishing and your life will endure." What this quote means to me is that there are two "deaths." Death of the spirit and death of the body. I think what the author means here is that if we live a moral life and care for our spiritual life then it doesn't matter if our spirit dies. If we don't care for our spiritual life, then when our body dies, we will have nothing because our spirit will be dead.

Ties between Tao Te Ching and The Trial and Death of Socrates

I don't remember what the quote was, but Socrates told Euthyphro that he couldn't understand him because he knew too much. In poem 47, the author says "the more you travel, the less you know". i think these relate because as you learn more and grow in knowledge, you fail to see the simple and obvious truths.

Meditation

I meditated on the Tao and what emptiness was. To me emptiness cannot really exist. There is always something in a given space. Even the most perfect form of emptiness, outer space, is filled with planets, stars and asteroids. In my opinion nothing can be truly empty.

Being Darwin

When my classes ended Wednesday, I observed the lake in the center of our campus with Darwin's ideas on evolution in mind. I saw the many plants, the people, and the geese. I witnessed how they interacted. I saw that the geese were very defensive of their young. Whenever someone walked by one of the ducks it tilted its beak up at them. This is probably a defense mechanism that evolved over time. The offspring of certain ducks probably only survived if their parents were very defensive of them. The gene for being defensive probably was passed on from generation to generation. People and other animals probably ate the geese in the past. They probably see us as a predator and that is why they tilt their beak up at us to scare us. This is an example of Natural Selection in this ecosystem.

People interact differently. They do not need to worry about their basic survival. People near the lake and at the library rushed to class and worried about their assignments. The people were in competition with one another. Those who get the best grades will get the best job. In turn, those who get the best jobs will have stable incomes; this is very attractive for a mate because it is conducive to having a stable family. This is an example of the law of Competition.

The plants seemed to be very diverse especially around the lake. There were various kinds of trees. Some of these trees may have been brought to the lake by man and others have grown naturally. As I write this, the different kinds of foliage are probably competing with one another in order to be the dominant species.

Man's Place in Tao

In tao, man is insignificant. Chou states, "Heaven and earth are not kind: The ten thousand things are straw dogs to them"(5). By this statement, he means everything on the earth and in the heavens is insignificant because there is so much of it. Later he states, "Sages are not kind, people are straw dogs to them"(5). The reader infers that because man and the ten thousand things are straw dogs, they are insignificant to Tao and its teachers, the sages. Later Chou adds, "Longwinded speech is exhausting. Better to stay centered"(5). Chou means that do not lose focus on the individuals place in the universe. Man is insignificant compared to heaven and the Tao. Man should be humble before the Tao and accept it.

Common Themes of Society Today and Poem 3

There is a theme of avoiding excess in Poem 3 of "Tao Te Ching Lao-Tzu" that relates to how people in American society are hurt by excess. The author states, " By weakening ambitions and strtengthening bones; leads people away from knowing and wanting"(Chou 3). Chou means that if we want less, they will not be dissapointed if they do not recieve things. People in american culture would be happier if the did not desire as much material goods. We would not be disapointed when we would not recieve things because we would not expect them.

More Generalisations About the Sexes

Darwin makes another generalization about the sexes. He says that, "woman seems to differ from man in mental disposition, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness..." (269). He then makes a comment about men in general, "[man] delights in competition, and this leads to ambiton which passes too easily into selfishness"(269). Darwin assumes that men always fit the Victorian model of a man and a woman. A man can be tender and affectionate and a woman can be very competitive and selfish.

Sexist Ideas from Darwin

Darwin made several sexist presumptions throughout the text, On Evolution. One striking example is when he states that, "Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius"( 266). Darwin seems to hold Victorian ideas of his time that the sexes are distinctly different in that the female is shy, passive, and dainty; the male is strong, courageous and bold. These Victorian ideas may be true in some cases, but darwin cannot assume that all men and women fit this model of masculineness and femineness. There are some women who display masculine qualities and men who display female qualities.

I thought that this quote about morality related to how social creatures like ants profit not on an individual level, but on a societal level. " It must not be forgotton that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the tribe, yet that an advancement in the standard of morality and an increase in the number of well-endowed men will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over the other." Just like ants, humans do not profit on the individual level from what is good for the group, but the group does profit from sacrafices of the individual. As a society we profit from morality, but the individual does not. An example would be if a businessman made a lot of money from cheating his customers, he would be successful, but the community would not benefit as a whole. The community would lose all its money and resources because of the businessman's greed

Another case where I thought Darwin made too many assumptions is when he says," The bravest men, who were always willing to come to the front in war, and who freely risked their lives for others, would on average perish in larger numbers than other men. Therefore, it seems scarcely possible, that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the standard of their excellence, could be increased throught natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest." Darwin has proved some physical traits are passed on through reproduction to offspring, but he has not proved that personality or emotions can be passed on to offspring. These qualities such as bravery and courage could be things that result from the environment they were raised in.

I agreed a lot with Darwin's ideas throughout our readings, but I found the following exerpt a little rediculous: " A positive example was the self-selection whereby the "best people" in Europe, as defined by such qualities as energy and courage, had formed an exceptionally talented population in emigrating to the United States." I think a lot of people are very energetic and courageous, but the people here are not necessarily more courageous than the people in Europe. For all Darwin knew, the worst people who were the least successful in Europe came to the United States so they would not have to deal with the strong competition of the more successful Europeans. I feel that Darwin is making too big of an assumption in this exerpt from his writings.

Irony in On Evolution

I thought it was ironic when Darwin admitted " This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy." His theory is claimed by many to disprove the existence of a god or divine being that people have no proof of but have faith in. Ironically, He is asking the reader to have faith that his calculations and theories are true. Science is supposed to be absolute and be precise. We don't have faith in laws and theories; they are proven by trial and error to be true.

more on Phaedo

" Well then that being so, is it not natural for the body to dissolve easily, and for the soul to be altogether indossoluble, or nearly so?"

I thought throughout Socrates argument for the existence of the soul he assumed way too much. He kept on assuming that since the body could be seen it could be destroyed and since the soul was something that you could not see, you could not destroy it and it lasted forever. I believe everyone has a soul also but I just don't believe it for this reason. There are things that you can necessarily see like happiness etc... like saocrates talked about, but these are two different things. Things like happiness were ideas and a soul is not an idea. I would believe Socrates more if he talked about how humans have another part of them that acounts for their personality.

Phaedo

I disagreed with Socrates in his dialogue when he said, " Therefore, if we had this knowledge, we knew before birth and immediately after not only the equal, but the Greater and the Smaller and all such things, for our present argument is no more about the Equal than about the Beautiful itself, the Good itself, the just, the Pious and, as I say, about all those things to which we can attache the word "itself' both when we are putting questions and answering them." A large part of what we think is beautiful, or good or bad, comes from the culture we are raised in. What is physically beautiful, morally acceptible differs from place to place. We are not all born with a standard of beauty or right and wrong.

Parallel between White Castle and Phaedo

I thought this quote was similar to an idea in the White Castle. "Whenever someone, on seeing something, realizes that that which he now sees wants to be like some other reality, but falls short and cannot be like that other since it is inferior, do we agree that the one who thinks this must have prior knowledge of that to which he says it is like, but deficiently so? I thought this quote related to how Hoja saw that the narrator was like a better model of him. He looked just like Hoja. However, if you compared Hoja and the narrator you would see that the narrator is not only better educated but also had a natural talent for learning. Hoja envied this throughout the story.

How I relate to the reading

In The Trial and Death of Socrates, I related to the line, "... he begged and implored the jureymen with many tears, that he brought his children and many of his friends and family into court to arouse as much pity as he could, ..." Whenever I am in trouble with my parents, I often use sympaty as a way to get away with things. I try to make them feel guilty for grounding me and I use the lline "You used to be a teenager once too!" frequently.

How I relate

I related to the following from The White Castle. " I had spoken of a childhood friend of mine with whom I'd developed the habit of thinking the same thing at the same time." I was and am still very good friends with my cousin Steve and we used to play pick up baseball, football games running bases. Whenever we did this it always seemed like I knew where to run to when I was catching a pass or who he wanted to throw out without him telling me. I felt like I knew him so well that I could just predict what he would do. Now that we are older I can still do that when we talk. I know how he thinks and how he will react to a person or situation. It's cool to know someone that well.

What I related to in the reading

I related to the line, "I tried to convince myself that sooner or later I would be able to escape to my own country." I like college a lot, but sometimes I miss my home. Sometimes I wish I could go back and hang out with my friends back home for the day.

espn

good website http://www.espn.com

espn.com www.espn.com

1st Core Blog Post

core class is awesome