Wow!...The Last Blog

In Core class, blogging lasted two semesters. Throughout these two semesters, I have learned that I have used my blog the same way. I have used the blog to relate to a quote, explain a quote, compare two quotes from different works, to understand an author’s ideas by pretending to be that author, and to develop thesis statements for my papers. This year I have learned about the importance of blogging as a way of developing ideas. I also feel that my blogging itself has changed in three ways in the second semester: the community of bloggers has helped me to see different perspectives and helped to expand my ideas, my blogging has become based more on analysis rather than summary, and the POW feature has inspired me to raise the quality of my blogging.

This year I have learned about the importance of blogging as a way of developing ideas on a daily basis about different works. These ideas are of the utmost importance because they are where one’s paper will ultimately originate. There is a saying that, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” The same is true of a paper at the University of Richmond. Quality papers require much grappling with the text and are a weekly process. First, one thinks about several different ideas that he or she is interested in. Then he or she develops them into blog posts. When it comes time to write a paper, this individual has a variety of developed ideas which he or she can use to create a paper. I have found that the ideas I have blogged about have helped me to produce the best papers I have written. I think that blogging is a great resource for any type of class that requires textual analysis and essays.

The main difference between the blogging of last semester and this semester has been the element of the blogging community. Last semester, there was not nearly as much commenting on one another’s blogs because not every student had other classmates’ blog URL’s. This resulted in past blogging being isolated. A student’s blog was just for the individual student’s needs, not that of the community’s. Having so many different perspectives this semester helped students to understand the text and spread new ideas. This helped many students including myself to form new ideas about the text. After the first semester had been completed, and the blogging system had moved to the more community-oriented system present in the second d semester, the blogging system changed for the better.

Through my blogging, I have noticed that my textual analysis has progressively gotten better. I think that this is most evident when comparing my ideas about Gandhi with those about Freud. I was surprised that I struggled with philosophic works in general, but especially when I first started analyzing them. Most of my posts about Gandhi were chiefly just summarizing the main concepts: Varna, the Hindi beliefs, Gandhi’s ideas on English culture and non-violence. However, I actually analyzed Freud by taking his ideas and applying them to characters with sexual issues like Giovanni and Mrs. Curren. I think that this is a substantial achievement for me because I will be less hesitant to take courses where textual analysis of philosophic texts is involved.

The POW (Post of the Week) feature was by far the most beneficial factor in my blogging this semester. This feature inspired me to make better posts. I wanted to win this award every week. Although this did not happen, I significantly raised the quality of my blogging as a result of the POW award. When comparing the posts of the first semester with those of this semester, one would see that in general, my posts are much longer this semester and much more insightful. I think that the POW award resulted in much positive competition among my classmates and me.

I have to say that I am pleased with having the blog as a resource for Core. It has helped me to better develop textual analysis which has made me a better writer. In the second semester, this is evident. I feel that in the second semester, the blogging community has forced me to put more effort into my posts and also exposed me to a variety of different perspectives. I would not change anything about this blogging and I hope that other teachers also use blogging as a means for students to explore their ideas.

Images vs Words

On page 51, there are numerous images of brutal violence. When first readiing this section of the book, I found it somewhat disturbing. However, now that I look back on this scene, I like the way the author presents it. Words can only tell so much. Words are always open to more interpretation than an image is. With words, we produce our own mental images. In the case of pictures, the image is produced for us. I think that the way Satrapi presented the pictures was a great way to show how cruel and oppressive the fundamentalist regime was. She could make us feel uncomfterable and disturbed. We could realize what the Iranian people felt towards their government at this time.

"Out of the fire and inti the frying pan"

I think the saying, "out of the frying pan and into the fire relates a lot to the condition of Iran when Satrapi was younger. After the shah has left and fundamentalism is rising, the father remarks, " ...Let's enjoy our new freedom" (43). His wife remarks, "Now that the devil has the left" (43)! In the cartoon, the characters are surrounded by a devil as they say these things. I think this is the author's way of saying that the Shah brought on bad times, but fundamentalists did not fix anything. They were not the angels who came and fixed the country. They were just a new ruling class. Not much had really changed.

This idea of one situation not being any better than another after a change correlates with that of the quote "Out of the frying pan and into the fire." When one goes from the frying pan to the fire, he goes from two equally bad situations. This is much like what the Iranian people, including the Satrapis, are feeling. Power transferred from one dictator to another. There was only a nominal change not necessarily an actual change.

This is also similar to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. This movement brought comunism to Russia. Although russians embraced communism, the new life they recieved was really not that much better than the life they had when they were under the control of the czars. Effectively they went from the fryinf=g pan into the fire

Symbolism in Giovanni's Room

"...I take the blue envelope which Jaques has sent me and tear it slowly into many pieces, watching them dance in the wind, watching the wind carry them away. Yet, as I turn and begin walking toward the waiting people, the wind blows some of them back on me" (169). Jaques seemed to symbolize everything David was afraid of becoming. Jaques was a pervert and liked young boys. He used his money to get what he wanted. Jaques often lent money to David because he did not work. Maybe this blue paper was one of the checks that Jaques wrote out to David. By wripping this check up, David would be cutting ties with Jaques. He would not cash the money. He would not be in debt to Jaques. This wripping up of the check from Jaques seems like a symbol of David trying to tear himself away from his gay lifestyle. Jaques symbolizes the gay lifestyle David fears. It is fitting that after he rips up the check that it blows back onto him. This symbolizes how David can never seem to get away from his "shameful" desires.

Giovanni + David Reject Society Also and Their Religious Beliefs

Giovanni and David were already "nontraditional" in the sense that they had a homosexual relationship. Could they also be in conflict with civilization in their religious beliefs?

"...I had made a baby but it was born dead...we spanked it...we sprinkled it with holy water and we prayed but it never made a sound, it was dead...I took our crucifix off the wall and I spat on it..." (139-140). Clearly in this sequence of events, Giovanni is in despair because his child was born stillborn. By spitting on the crucifix and throwing it on the ground, he seems to reject God. Giovanni seems to place the onus for his child's death on God. By rejecting God, he goes against the traditions of society which provide that one should pray and fear God.

"He kisses the cross and clings to it. The priest gently lifts the cross away...He moans. He wants to spit, but his mouth is dry..." (168). Again, spitting on the cross is obviously a rejection of God. Although, Giovanni does not do so here, he clearly in David's imagination has the desire to do so. This also goes against society's traditions.

"...[The Italian woman] asks, abruptly, "Do you pray?" I wonder if I can stand this one more moment. "No," I stammer..."But you are a believer?" I smile. It is not even a patronizing smile though, perhaps I wish it could be, "Yes" (69). When the woman asks him if he prays, David stammers. From this action, one understands that David does not like being asked this question for some reason. Then after she asks if he is a believer, he wants to have a patronizing smile. he wants to have an air of condescension towards her. Maybe he thinks that her religious beliefs are false or maybe he thinks having a religion at all is futile. He seems to say yes to just to get her to stop bothering him.

Throughout these different examples, there seems to b a recurring idea: Giovanni and David reject traditional religion. Both of these individuals' actions speak for their true beliefs. Neither comes out and says he is an atheist. But, from their actions, one can see that David and Giovanni are atheists.

David: Gay, Heterosexual...Does he ever come to a conclusion?

What is David's Sexual Orientation?

"Then I took her in my arms and something happened then. I was terribly glad to see her...She fitted my arms, she always had, and the shock of holding her caused me to feel that my arms had been empty since she had been away" (120). I thought this was an interesting scene and it goes along with what we have been discussing in class: some people are not totally heterosexual or homosexual. In this scene David appears to show some desire for Hella because it "feels right" when they touch. It is not like the scene with Sue where he does not enjoy being with her at all.

"I felt a hardness and a constriction in her, a grave distrust, created already by too many men like me..." (99). David was picking up Sue because she was "easy." Many other men had done the same thing before. "...she had small breasts and a big behind..." (95). She was not very attractive and probably did not feel adequate. In order to make herself feel better about herself, Sue had sex with David. In this case, David is not necessarily feeling homosexual feelings, but he is definitely not feeling attraction to Sue. Maybe he is trying to have sex with her because he is in denial of his homosexuality. David's homosexuality is clearly shown to Giovanni.

As David leaves Giovanni's room he remarks, "Then something opened in my brain, a secret, noiseless door swung open, frightening me: it had not occurred to me until that instant that, in fleeing from his body, I confirmed and perpetuated his body's power over me...as though i had been branded his body was burned into my mind, into my dreams" (144). Here David seems to acknowledge his issue with his sexuality. He acknowledges that he is running from something. David can now see that he is trying to hide from his sexuality.

David says at the conclusion of the novel, "...the key to my salvation, which cannot save my body, is hidden in my flesh" (168). Maybe, the key to his salvation is his orientation. It is hidden because he hides it. David tries to ignore his homosexuality through Hella and Sue. His orientation also originates from his body. It originates from who he is attracted to.

I think that at the conclusion of the novel, David doesn't necessarily come to a definitive decision about his sexuality, but he realizes that it is the key to his happiness. His sexuality seems to be the main conflict in his life. It is why he runs away to Paris and is afraid to have a relationship with his father. Often the first way to solving a problem is being able to address it first.

Self-denial

After David and Joey's sexual encounter, David seems to reject him. He says, "I picked up with a rougher, older crowd and was very nasty to Joey. And the sadder this made him, the nastier I became" (Baldwin 10). Baldwin seems to be rejecting Joey even after their intimate encounter. This seems illogical at the surface. Why would David reject Joey after he appeared to like him so much. Later David says, "I had decided to allow no room in the universe for something which shamed and frightened me" (20). David appears to allude to Joey being the cause of some embarrassment. If David had loved him, then where would this chagrin originate from?

Freud says, "...an instinctual need acquires the strength to achieve satisfaction in spite of the conscience, which is, after all, limited in its strength; and with the nature of the need owing to its having been satisfied, the former balance of power is restored" (94). If Freud were to psycho-analyze David, he may suggest that he definitely fulfilled an instinctual love by having sex with Joey. Because David later tries to separate himself from Joey, and because he says, "I had decided to allow no room for the something that shamed and frightened me," Freud may argue that his conscience told him that his impulses were wrong. Freud actually has a psychoanalytic term for what Joey may have felt. Freud says, "When one has a sense of guilt after having committed a misdeed, and because of it, the feeling should more properly be called remorse" (94). David can be considered to be going through remorse because of his rejection of Joey after their night together. David's natural need for companionship was satisfied by Joey, but then after this was need was satisfied, his conscience came back. It was no longer overwhelmed by his desire. He then felt remorse for the "sin" he had committed.

Mooring Posts

"...people can't, unhapily, invent their moring posts, their lovers and their friends, anymore than they can invent their parents. Life gives these and also takes them away and the great difficulty is to say Yes to life" (Baldwin 5). A moring post is something a ship ties up temporarily to so that it does not drift away. He uses "mooring post" as a metaphor for those one is close to in life. Friends and lovers give one campanionship and keep him from being lonely. They give him an outlet for his troubles. When Baldwin says "they can't invent them" he implies that he would wish them to be another way. Baldwin implies that he wishes he could "invent" them in a way in which he would want them to be. When he says "life takes them away," he implies that these relationships don't last forever. Balwin may be implying that although firends and lovers may not be perfect, one should still accept them for who they are. He shouldn't want to change them. These individuals may only be with him for a short time.

I thought this was similar to something Mrs. Curren said about Vericuel in Age of Iron. Vercuel says, “I don’t see what you need me for.” Mrs. Curren then replies, “You arrived. It’s like having a child. You can’t choose the child, it just arrives” (Coetzee 71). When she says "you can't choose the child," she seems to be agreeing with Baldwin. One cannot choose the mooring post in one's life. In this case the mooring post is a child which she compares to Vericuel. She seems to imply that she is takning him in regardless of his alcoholic and vagabond nature. Maybe, like Baldwin she accepts Vericuel because he will be one of the fleeting companionships she will have in her life; actually, the last mooring post she will have in her life.

Vocation and Behavior

Vocation defines how one perceives behavior.


Vercuel says, “I don’t see what you need me for.” Mrs. Curren then replies, “You arrived. It’s like having a child. You can’t choose the child, it just arrives” (71). Mrs. Curren states the Vericuel is like a child. In many ways this is true. Children cannot provide for themselves, they cannot be depended on and they are uncontrollable like Vericuel. By saying that Vericuel’s arrival is like having a child, she leads one to believe that she is the mother taking care of Vericuel, the child. Thus, Mrs. Curren explains her behavior of letting Vericuel stay with her through a maternal perspective. Mrs. Curren had the vocation of a mother. She uses her vocation to explain her behavior.

Freud may explain Mrs. Curren’s behavior of taking Vericuel in differently. He says:

…people protect themselves against the loss of the object by directing their love, not to single objects but to all men alike; and avoid the uncertainties and disappointments of genital love by turning away from its sexual aims and transforming the instinct into an impulse with an inhibited aim…Perhaps St. Francis of Assisi went furthest in thus exploiting love for the benefit of an inner feeling of happiness. (57)

By taking in an alcoholic, homeless man, Mrs. Curren could be regarded as one like St. Francis of Assisi who extends her love to all. There is further evidence of her extending her love to all when she takes care of Bheki’s friend Johnathon. “While he lay in the street…I did what I could for him. But, to be candid, I would rather I had spent myself on someone else” (79). When she says “I would rather have spent time with someone else”, she indicates that she dislikes John. Nevertheless, she extends her love out to him even though she dislikes him. Mrs. Curren displays love to alcoholic homeless men and even those she does not like. Yet she still extends her love out to more. Mrs. Curren recants, “I remember a cat I once nursed, an old ginger tom whose jaw was locked shut by an abscess. I took him in…fed him mil through a tube, dosed him with antibiotics. When he got back his strength, I set him free,…continued to put food out for him, ….[and] for a year food was taken…In all this time he treated me without compromise as on of the enemy” (79). Mrs Curren extends her love out to others such an extent that she would even take the time and expense to nurse an old cat back to health. One could argue that this is not a worthy cause. After all, this old cat will die soon. A less empathetic person would just have the cat put to sleep to put the cat out of its misery. However, Mrs. Curren seems to have a deep love for others no matter their shape or form. Her care for others resembles the love Freud describes as a diversion from their sexual disappointments.

Mrs. Curren not only displays the “love of St. Francis” in that she is altruistic to many. She also does so in its sexual context. Mrs Curresn writes, “Sixteen years since I have shared a bed with a man or a boy. Sixteen years alone” (108). By stating that it has been sixteen years since she shared a bed with a man or a boy, she implies that she has not had sex with a male in that time span. Because her name is Mrs. Curren, one can conjecture that she is divorced or separated from a husband. He also may have passed away. There is no evidence that this husband still keeps contact with her. Thus, Mrs. Curren lost her love object, her husband. Freud may have argued that Mrs. Curren experienced sexual frustration because she had not outlet for her feelings.

One could argue that Freud may have characterized Mrs. Curren’s taking in of Vericuel as part of this “St Francis-like love.” She may have been trying to protect herself from the loss of her husband, her love object, by extending her love out to Johnathon, the cat and Vericuel. She could feel inner happiness in place of her sexual frustration. This is very different from her interpretation of her behavior as taking care of a child. Mrs. Curren’s way of interpreting her behavior would be different from the way Freud may interpret her behavior. Thus, perspective of behavior stems from one’s occupation.

Society, Individualism and Existentialism: Can they Co-exist?

Freud says, "Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separated individuals" (49).

If Freud is right, and that the community, for its betterment must prevent individuality, than how can one be an existentialist in a society as Freud describes it? Existentialism provides that each individual must define his own meaning or his own life. What if this in conflict with what society believes? What if one finds meaning through being a killer, murderer or a rapist? How far can existentialism really be extended in society? Existentialists agree that God does not exist. What right does one man have to tell another that his meaning is wrong? There is no deity that preached that his meaning is wrong. Each individual's new meaning is just as legitimate to another's no matter how objectionable it is. Existentialism legitimizes almost anything. In my opinion there is almost no way that an existentialist society could exist. People wouldn't be immoral, they would be amoral; they would have no morality. Moral relativity has to be absolute in existentialism and anything and everything would have to be tolerated. Society requires a certain code of conduct. Life cannot exist without some sort of rules and morality.

One could argue that if a number of existentialist atheists agreed to live by a certain code of morality, they could live in a state of order and stable society. But, whats to keep a person that has no final judgement to fear from breaking any rules he or she wants to break? They will only get punished if they get caught. One could also argue that religious people break rules just the same. That is undeniably true. But, if a religious person is religious in "practice" and not just "in name", then he would feel guilty for breaking an established code of morality. His religion serves somewhat as a check to his actions and controls his morality. Existentialists do not have this check.

Society and Atheism/Existentialism cannot coexist. Our society comfortably exists due to the sameness rather than the diversity of religion. It is wrong to kill, steal, abuse, rape, etc...Every major religion preaches this. However, atheism and existentialism preach nothing. They preach that an individual may find a meaning in whichever way he finds right. Although our society tries to become increasingly acceptable to all perspectives and all people, how relative can morality become? Where can one draw the line? If an existentialist believes in killing for his meaning than how can he be punished? In his conscience he is saving himself. He is achieving meaning. In modern society can we really have total freedom of belief?

Existentialism

Existentialism has been the central topic in Civilization and its Discontents in the reading up to now. This philosophy re-imagines society as we know it. Existentialism involves finding meaning in life without religion. Freud has discussed varying ways that man can find meaning in a world without a God. he suggests that it may be through science, love, and accomplishments. He says, "...every man find out for himself in what particular fashion can he be saved..." (34). By saved, Freud does not necessarily mean reaching salvation by some kind of deity. He means achieving some sort of meaning and giving purpose to one's life. In existentialism, God is assumed not to exist. Thus, the purpose of life is dramatically changed. The goal of life is not to reach salvation by following and established morality in a religion. Instead, the individual determines his own "saving grace". The individual's "saving grace" is in something he admires or something that fits his temperament and disposition well. This something becomes his new religion.

As our society becomes more and more secular, it seems to me that this has happened in a way. People have found ways to substitute religion. One example is sports. Its seems to me that in recent times with the rise of ESPN and organized sports that Americans have become increasingly religious about sports. We build huge stadiums that resemble cathedrals for the baseball and football gods. We celebrate their glory in the Super Bowl and the Stanley Cup. We even build shrines for these gods and call it the Hall of Fame. Cooperstown has become the new Mecca that we go on pilgrimages to. In a way when a player makes it to the big leagues, we speak about it as if this a salvation in itself. However, this is not the only way our society has found existential meaning.

Another mode of religion is pop culture. Celebrities are worshiped as another set of gods. Rock stars also reach god-like status. It seems like anyone will do whatever they can to get on TV these days. Whether it be singing horribly on American trials during the first cuts, eating bugs on Fear Factor, being an antagonist on the Real World and even going on the Maury show and embarrassing yourself. American Idol has become a means of reaching this god-like status. Contestants compete for their chance to become famous; their chance to reach salvation.

In addition, many find meaning through their careers. They let their job or career goals dominate every aspect of their life. Being successful or getting into Medical School becomes their salvation. This accomplishment gives the individual a higher goal and a seemingly more profound meaning in their life. This may seem more dignified than the others, but still is not much different. It is a substitution for a deity.

These are just my observations and they may or may not be of much value. I am no sociologist or psychologist. I am just some freshman. Many of these people may still be in fact be very religious. There is nothing inherently wrong with being atheistic either. Is our society more secular because more people have become atheistic existentialists or does this secularizing stem from our increasing goal of separation of church and state? I wonder what Sigmund would say.

The Life Cycle

It is interesting to look at how the author characterizes life.

She says, "...when you bear a child from your own body, you give your life to that child, the firstborn. Your life is no longer with you, it is no longer yours, it is with the child. That is why we do not really die: we simply pass on our life, the life that was for a while in us, and are left behind" (76).

I thought of the five bodies, of their massive, solid presence in the burned-down hall. Their ghosts have not departed, I thought, and will not depart. Their ghosts are sitting tight, in possession (104).

She seems to view life as a circle. People are born; life is passed from the parents to the child. Then that child grows up and becomes a parent. This way she claims that no one really dies and life is just passed on to others. When she says the five young people had their ghosts or spirits "trapped in them", she affirms this. These young people were killed before they could reproduce. The 'life cycle" was interrupted in a way. They "died." They could not pass on their life to their potential children.

Maternal Love

The narrator's desire for maternal love seems to play a large role in Age of Iron. Since her daughter has left her for America, she longs for the love she shared with her daughter. "I thought with envy and yearning of Florence in her room, asleep, surrounded by her sleeping children... Once I had everything..." (40).

When Florence is searching for her son, the narrator remarks, "Would Florence pause? No: amor matrice, a force that stopped for nothing" (94). "Amor matrice" means motherly love in Latin. She affirms the strength of motherly love.

When discussing her cancer, she uses a child as a metaphor to describe it saying, "I have a child inside that I cannot give birth to. Cannot because it will not be born. Because it cannot live outside me. So it is my prisoner or I am its prisoner" (82). It seems odd that even a malignant cancer is even a child to her. everything she thinks about is characterized from the point of view of a mother.

When speaking of the cruelty of the present generation, she says, "What kind of parents will they become who were thought that the time of there parents was over? ...They kick and beat a man because he drinks. They set people on fire and laugh while they burn to death. How will they treat their own children? What love will they be capable of" (50)? It is surprising that her thoughts on problems like the youth's unrest in South Africa seems to dwell on maternal love. She does not consider other consequence of the unrest such as what it means for the country. She just wonders if these children will make good parents.

'Behind closed eyes I saw my mother as she is when she appears to me..."Come to me!" I whispered. But she would not' (54-55). She longs for motherly love so much, that she has daydreams of when her mother used to take care of her.

When referring to the homeless man she takes care of she says, " How easy it is to love a child, how hard to love what a child turns into" (57). She seems to not like this man because he is an alcoholic and is lazy; he does nothing to help himself. Yet, she even takes care of him as if he were her child. Her lack of maternal love seems to dominate her emotions. She needs a way to compensate for that.

Throughout the novel so far, maternal love is an all encompassing philosophy from which the narrator views her external world in South Africa. She seems to miss this love since her daughter has left. She tries to compensate for this love by taking in the homeless man. She thinks that what she lacks is part of the problems of South Africa. People are cruel to each other and lack love for one another. The narrator even uses it to characterize her cancer. Clearly this woman is old and dying and lonely. She wants to be happy before she dies and is seeking to give and recieve love.

The Problem with T.V.

"...I get up and switch on the television...This is the door I open to let the world flood in, and this is the world that comes to me" (27).

I agree with the narrator in that the television can be a portal to the world for some. However, should we let it? Is everything that we see on t.v. true? I have to disagree that what you actually see is "the world." In my opinion what I see on NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc... is not the world. What I see is businesses trying to make money and spoon feeding me outrageous and exaggerated images and language to catch my attention. Its too easy. I don't even have to think because they do it for me. If you get caught up in it, the debates, analysis, and helicopters hovering over Britney and Paris-not the city- seem to be important; you feel "in the know." But, if you distance yourself from the media, then you realize how trivial it all is. Instead of having someone shove an opinion down my throat, I'd like to be able to go out into the world and experience it first hand. I want to see the world. I don't want to see it through a t.v. screen and someone else's eyes.

Heaven?

"I imagine heaven as a hotel lobby with a high ceiling and the Art of Fugue coming softly over the public address system...A place to which you bring nothing but an abstract kind of clothing and the memories inside you, the memories that make you" (25).

"Perhaps that is what the afterlife will be like: not a lobby with armchairs and music, but a great crowded bus on its way from nowhere to nowhere. Standing room only: on one's feet forever, crushed against strangers" (30).

Throughout the first thirty pages of Age of Iron, the narrator seems to contemplate what heaven would be like. She is dying of cancer and realizes she may be there soon. Her ideas on what heaven would be like seem to evolve over time. I feel that as I have grown and matured, my notion of heaven has also changed.

When I was younger I never really thought about the afterlife. I always assumed that it would be absolutely wonderful. I also always assumed that it existed. I never ventured too far from my everyday life in my thoughts. My life centered on the Yankees, the Islanders, my family and my friends. I just accepted the childish idea that heaven is this place in the clouds with angels that "good" people enjoyed when they passed on. I was never challenged to think differently.

However, as I grew older, I started to think outside of my comfort zone. I wondered about heaven. I wondered: What would it be like? Who would be there? Do people that aren't christian go to heaven? Where is heaven? How bad do you have to be to go to hell? Are the people in heaven fun? Do only holy, serious people get into heaven? (If this is the case, I'd have to agree with Billy Joel. "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints!" Maybe I should go to hell.) In all this confusion, I just wanted to understand what heaven actually was.

As I got older and found some answers, I came to the understanding or maybe misunderstanding I have now. In my opinion it does exist. Admission is relative. It depends when and where you lived. I also think the "requirements" are different for each person. According to the old cliche, "to more that is given more is expected." However, I still don't understand how everyone could all get a long. How can you not get bored being in the same place all the time? Is the food good? Do we have bodies or do we float around? Until I get there I guess I'll just have to use my imagination.

Taking On The Big Boys

Today I attended a discussion on Taking On The Big Boys, by Ellen Brovo, for One Book One Campus. We discussed Chapter 6, Nine To Five: Not Just A Movie -The Right To Organize. We discussed the importance of unions as it pertains to women. Women often benefit much by joining a union because they encounter such a disparity in wages between them and the male employees in their businesses. They need to organize and stand up for themselves as a group in the workforce. Unfortunately though, not many women or even men use unions. I thought this concept of inequality and not being able to organize might parallels some of Du Bois' ideas regarding the plight of African American men in his time.

Blacks in Du Bois' time faced several issues in supporting themselves. Like women, they endured unfair working conditions. I think that the greedy businessmen who discriminate against women today are similar to the landlords who ruled over their tenants. "...Landlords as a class have not yet come to realize that it is a good business investment to raise the standard of living among labor by slow and judicious methods; that a Negro laborer who demands three rooms and fifty cents a day would give more efficient work and leave a larger profit than a discouraged toiler herding his family in one room and working for thirty cents" (115). I agree that if a person is happier and lives a more secure lifestyle he is more likely to be more productive. Maybe if African Americans had organized in this time period to get better working conditions, they could have won some for themselves. The south was very dependent on agriculture in this time. The black tenants were responsible for a lot of the "dirty work" that the white men did not want to do. If many black people had stopped working, the South would have been in a stranglehold. The South could not live long without cotton or any other crop it produced. Landlords would have had to grudgingly accept a lot of the tenants' demands.

Du Bois and Advancing African American Culture

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).

"...no secure civillization can be built in the South with the Negro as an ignorant, turbulent proletariat" (Du Bois 87).

Du Bois's discussion of African American education during his time period connects with this quote from Marx. Du Bois desdescribes how the education limits blacks becasue it trains them practically for their trade. It does not train them to be scholars. These people become parts of a machine. "It was not enough that the teachers should be trained in technical normal methods; they must also, so far as possible, be broad-minded, cultured men and women..." (81). Although being a teacher requires much more education than being a factory worker, there still is the same problem. These students are not taught to reach higher and to expand their minds. They are just being taught to earn an income. In a way, they are machines because they "pump out" students with educations which society needs. It is similar to someone working in a shoe factory who makes shoes for society because there is a demand for them. Du Bois would like to see an education that would produce scholars that can advance African American culture as a whole and prove whites wrong.

One editorial by a white person said, "The experiment that has been made to give the colored students classical training has not been satisfactory. Even though many were able to pursue the course, most of them did so in a parrot like way, learning what was taught, but not seeming to appropriate the truth and imort of their instructon..." (83). It was believed that blacks were a less advanced people and they cannot reason. A parot does not think when it speaks. It just repeats whatever humans say to it. Whites believed blacks could not think and could not expand their horizons in education. They could just be taught the tools to support themselves.

Georgia = England

"How strange that Georgia, the world-heralded refuge of poor debtors, should bind her own to sloth and misfortune as ruthlessly as ever England did" (105)!

James Edward Oglethorpe, an English philanthropist, originally established Georgia as a safe haven for debtors. He had compassion for the many people in England who had gone bankrupt and then were thrown in prison. These people could not make money in prison to repay their debts. Often they remained in prison for long periods of time. Usually a husband would be thrown in prison and his wife and children would have to go to work to help him pay off the family's debt. Children would be taken out of school and forced to work in factories for very low wages. Oglethorpe reasoned that these people could pay off their debt by providing England with a new trading partner and resources from the Americas. They could create a colony called Georgia in the Americas. In addition, the people could start off with a fresh new life.

Du Bois finds it ironic that black tenant farmers are being treated by Southern society much the same way England treated its citizens. Black tenant farmers were imprisoned in a cruel cycle of poverty. They were always in debt and never made enough money to pay back their debt because of the low price of cotton. Whites charged incredibly high prices to rent mules and rent substandard property. Du Bois thinks it odd that a state once created to help the debtor now exists to drive him further into debt.

Is K a lonely Sputnik?

"Why do people have to be this lonely? What is the point of it all" (179)? K thought this as he contemplated being without Sumire at the acropolis. "Human beings in the final analysis have to survive on their own" (195). K bridged this idea with another when he "closed [his] eyes and listened carefully for the descendants of Sputnik, even now circling the earth, gravity their only tie to the planet. Lonely metal souls in the unimpeded darkness of space, they meet, pass each other, and part, never to meet again" (179). Is this satelite a metaphor for K?

K seems to have many relationships with others that are temporary and unfulfilling. Like a lonely satelite he crosses paths with other satelites (people) , but never meets them again. His time with Sumire is bitter sweet because he cannot have a romantic relationship with her. He has desires for her, but he cannot fulfill them. He crosses path with her for a time in his life, but she ends up abruptly leaving his life. In the case of Miu, he never speaks to her again. He wishes he could have seen her again, but she never tries to contact him. "Something must have happened to prevent her from contacting me"(202). This seems to be the case even with the family he grew up with. The only part of his family that he truly connected with was his dog. "...I couldn't communicate with anyone in my family" (194). Even the affair he was having with the mother of one of his students comes to an abrupt end. "...[Carrot] had a new teacher now, there were few times I'd run across my former girlfriend" (203). These people only exist temporarly in k's life like the satelites that cross paths with one another.

Foreshadowing in Sputnik Sweetheart

"'If I had my way, me too,' Sumire said, beaming. 'But what can you do? Wonderful things always come to an end'" (110).

When Miu told about her and Sumire's conversation, this line seemed to pop out at me as a kind of foreshadowing. For me, it seemed to foretell of Sumire's disappearance. The two had been speaking of how long they wish they could have stayed at the cottage. Although we see this excerpt in hindsight already knowing what had happened, it seems as though it had a purpose. I find it more than a coincidence that the line would be placed in one of the last conversations the two would have together.

We don't know exactly why Sumire left. Most would probably believe her disappearance had to with her advances being rejected by Miu. She was ashamed. However, because of this foreshadow, one could argue that maybe Sumire got bored with Miu. Maybe if she couldn't have a sexual relationship with Miu then she would not have one with her at all.

Adrienne's Relationship with Her Father: Is it all that bad?

Adrienne Rich gives us the impression that her relationship with her father brought largely hurt her and did not benefit her. However, I strongly disagree. Adrienne Rich's father instilled in his daughter the importance of education. "...where the father walks up and down telling the child to work, work harder than anyone else has before? -But I can't stop seeing like this more and more I see like this everywhere" (108). Maybe in the beginning, she did not enjoy her father forcing her to work hard in her studies, but as she got older, maybe she started to value working hard in her studies more. Although Rich may have been disillusioned with her father earlier in life, she has to credit him for fostering this interest in academics and poetry to him. "His investment in my intellect and talent was egotistical, tyrannical, opinionated, and terribly wearing. He taught me nevertheless, to write and rewrite: to feel that I was a person of the book, even though a woman; to take ideas seriously" (232). Even after she becomes disillusioned with her father later in life, she still has to admit that he is largely responsible for her career. Maybe the relationship she had with her father wasn't so bad after all.

"Equality vs. Sameness"

Equality and sameness are two words wich I often have believed to be grouped together. However, after reading "When We Dead Awaken: Writing As A Re-Vision" I have changed my notions of these two ideas. Now, the word "equal" does not necessarily imply the word "same." For example, women in our society could achieve equality in rights with men, but they don't necessarily have to be the same as men. They don't have to behave in a male stereotypical way just because they now have rights that were once considered exclusively male in nature. This concept seems to resonate with Rich's discussion of male and female poetry.

"But even in reading these women I was looking in them for the same things I had found in the poetry of men, because I had wanted women poets to be the equals of men, and to be equal was still confused with sounding the same "(171). In desiring male and female equality in writing, she wanted the styles of men and women to be the same. However, this does not make the poetry necessarily good. It makes it the same. Poetry can be of equal caliber if the styles are different. The poetry can be just as creative and imaginitive.

Respect for Women: Has It Improved That Much?

When I last wrote my blog, I discussed the importance of moral relativeness in considering whether Othello should bear responsibility for Desdemona's death. One of the important issues in making this determination that I considered was that women were treated with less respect in Othello's time. They were considered to be subservient to men and somewhat second-class citizens. Another factor was that chastity was more important in that time period. Therefore, when a woman cheated on her husband in this time she would have not only violated the everimportant virtue of chastity. She would also anger her "master" who provided for her. If he killed her it would not have been a big deal. We discussed this in our class today and as a group, we seemed to pride ourselves on how far we have come in respect for women. If a husband had suspected his wife of cheating in our time, he wouldn't jump to conclusions and just kill her. However, I think we have to ask ourselves if Western civillization has really progressed that much in regard to respect for women.

In recent times, we have critisized Eastern cultures and their treatment of women. One philosophy in particular that is condemned is Islamic Fundamentalism. It is true that many of these fundamentalists beat women, prevent them from earning an education and treat them as servile creatures somewhere below men and above an animal. I do not defend these actions in any way. But, we have to acknowledge that women are in some ways held in a higher regard in Islamic Fundamentalism than in modern Western culture.

This may seem outrageous to some, but I believe that Western culture has actually regressed in respect for a woman's body. In the last fifty years, women have gained many rights, but they have become increasingly objectified in pop culture. Magazines, television, movies and fashion have reduced the image of a woman largely down to her outside appearance. A woman's accomplishments seem to have become less and less important. The feminine ideal has become more and more shallow. If you look at a lot of celebrities today you can see my argument.

Many female celebreties have made it soley based on their looks. Has Paris Hilton ever accomplished anything worthwhile? Has Jessica Simpson ever gone to college or even completed high school? Nicole Richie? It seems that the mark of a woman is being based totally on her sex apeal in our Western Society. I think it encourages girls not to do meaningful things like go to college, work at a prestigous position or even just be a modest, but caring house wife. There is no shame in just being a stay-at-home mom. Objectification of women does not end with the celebrities we glorify, it also occurs in the music we listen to.

Much of todays music (not just rap music) demeans women. Many of the lyrics are disrespectful. They describe women as sex objects. These lyrics tell men to use women. They tell women basically to expect this. So we not only see the images of women being objectified, but we have to hear it too. This is our "advanced" culture.

At least in Othello's time and in Islamic Fundamentalism, women were treated with dignity when it came to their bodies. Women were prided on being chaste. Women to some degree were raised to aspire to higher things. They would want to be more than just "hot." A good woman would raise her children correctly, manage to deal with a demanding and unapreciative husband, and keep her house clean. Although many women would find this not much to aspire to, its more than Jessica Simpson, Nicole Richie or Paris Hilton could ever accomplish. The women in Othello's time and the era of Islamic Fundamentalism are better role models for todays generation than any of these celebrities. They believed in things bigger than themselves and their bodies.

We Cannot Make Judgements About Those in Another Time and Place

I often find myself judging other people. I always think that I can do something better than another. I think that in a situation where someone failed to do something, I on the other hand would have got it done. When someone may have had a lapse in ethics I always think that I would have done the right thing. This may be true, but it is highly unlikely.

When we are in the heat of the moment and making a decision a lot may be going through our minds. We may think how it impacts our family, our friends, our morality, our grades, and many other spheres of our life. In addition to these conflicting influences, emotion plays a huge role in our decision making process. Feelings can overwhelm a person and cloud any moral faculties or prudence that he or she would have in any other less stressful situation. This is why it may be unfair to judge someone based on their conduct in a situation unless you have known everything that was going through that person's mind.

I think this definitely applies when judging the actions of Othello in murdering his wife. In a time when women receive more respect, and chastity is no longer seen as an essential virtue, cheating on ones husband may not be looked at as a terrible crime as it was in Shakespeare's time. Othello says, " Heaven stops the nose at [her unfaithfulness]...Impudent Strumpet" (109)! Obviously from his rant we see how serious an offense unfaithfulness is. Heaven cringes at it. Now, women are not stoned for cheating on their husbands. Because they receive more respect than they used to, women are seen as an essential part of the family. Husbands are much more forgiving in modern times. In the time of Shakespeare, killing was wrong, but if a man killed his wife for cheating on her, it would not be that much of a crime. Being a part of this culture, Othello would feel no shame in murdering his wife. In fact, he would probably feel justified for doing so. The thought of this may make us shudder today, but 300-400 years ago there was a different culture and way of life. I really don't think anyone can look at another person's actions in another time through the thin scope of morality in the modern Western world. Morality is relative.

The Power of Love

Sadly, in the newspaper there are stories so often of spousal abuse that often lead to murder and harm to children. Frequently, we see wives who are in total denial of what is happening to them. They will have marks and physical proof of what their husband has done to them. Surprisingly, these battered women make excuses for their husbands like "I fell down the stairs" or "I fell in aerobics class." They could potentially stop it before it gets any worse. In my opinion, I think there are several resons for why a woman what put herself through this and not try to get a divorce or separate from her husband. The wife may be thinking of the children, or having to totally change her lifestyle and possibly having to support herself if she hadn't previously worked. She may not have the training to hold a jobe that could support a large family. Another just as likely possibility is that the wife is totally blinded by the love she has for her husband. She cannot come to the realization of what is happening to her because she just cannot accept it.

I saw this same phenomenon in the final moments of Desdemona's murder. She completely denied it had anything to do with Othello. This occurrs when Emilia says, "'O, who hath done this deed?' and then Desdemona replies in her last words as she dies, " Nobody-I myself. Farwell...'" (133-134). Othello then says, "'Why should she be murdered?' and Emilia retorts, "Alas, who knows?'" (134). Othello states, "You heard her say herself, it was not I"(134). I think that Desdemona was so in love with Othello that even in the final moments of her murder, a death that she knew she did not deserve, Desdemona still could not blame Othello for her murder. She loved him too much. It would hurt her more to acknowledge the fact that Othello had killed her than to just die and accept death. Infatuation is a formidable force not only in this story, but in real life.

Manipulative People

After reading Iago's second soliloquoy, I saw something similar in him to another character we discussed frequently in core: Lily Bart. What I find in common with these two characters is ther manipulative natures. They try to control the social situations around them for their own benefit.

I remember one scene in particular in The House of Mirth when Lily was at her best. She was with Percy Gryce taking the train. She wanted his attention badly because she thought he would be a good suitor because he was rich. She pretended to fall when the train rocked to start a conversation with Gryce. She made sure to talk about things like Americana books to get his attention and keep him interested. She desperately wanted him to find her interesting. She had a skill for manipulating people to get what she wanted.

Iago, like Lily is manipulative. Through Act 1 and Act 2, there are several instances where Iago displays this characteristic. One example is when he gets Cassio drunk so he can cause a disturtbance and be relieved of his duties. This would make Iago second in command. He says, "If I can fasten but one cup upon [Cassio] with that with which he hath drunk tonight already, he'll be full of quarrel and offense..." (47). Later after wishing to do harm to Cassio, he lies to Othello to sound kind. He says, "I'd rather have this tongue cut from my mouth than to do offense to Michael Cassio..." (54). Iago lies about wanting to do harm to Cassio because he himself wants to gain favor from Othello. By sounding kind, he wishes to win over Othello. In the same act, he acts completely differently towards Cassio so he can manipulate others and reach his ends just like Lily would.

Unfortunately, I did not read Othello in high school so I might have not been as familiar with the plot as some of my other classmates. However, after the speaker gave his presentation to the class, I feel that I understand Shakespeare a little better and what is going on in this play. I feel like I am caught up now.

The speaker repeatedly emphasized that Iago was deceptively nice. He was viewed in the beginning of the play as an honest and trustworthy character. This is most obvious when Othello says, "Iago is most honest" (45). His true colors come out in his soliloquoys. In his second soliloquoy, we see how he seeks to manipulate others around him to reach his ends of getting revenge with Othello. "My wife must move for Cassio to her mistress-I'll set her on-myself a while to draw the Moor apart and bring him jump when he may Cassio find soliciting his wife. Aye that's the way" (59)! At first, when I read Act I i felt as though I didn't understand what was going on and I was unfamiliar with the characters. However, now that I am more familiar with the text, I have a better grasp of what is going on.

Video Script

I finished my sound recording after several unsuccessful attempts. Its amazing how different your voice sounds on a recording. I never realized how monotone I sound when I speak. I also did not realize how deep my voice was. I noticed as I recorded my script, that I could barely make out the inflections in my voice as I read my script. It took me several times to make a track that had inflections. I noticed that I slur some words and mispronounce others. Throughout the whole ordeal, I felt as though I was listening to another person talk about my life.

However, I do think this project has helped me a great deal. I improved my speaking skills. This assignment has forced me to speak more clearly and with emphasis. In the past I spoke lazily. I also felt that this project has made me comfortable telling other people about myself. Something is lost when you write an essay or blog about yourself. It feels kind of anonymous and impersonal. It's easier. When you talk about yourself outloud for another person, even when its just a recording, it's more emotional. I felt almost embarrassed talking about myself being upset in my story. You actually hear what you wrote and take more of it in. When I just write, I don't really grasp the full effect of the words. But, when I speak them aloud I feel like they actually mean something.

Why is "old" and such a bad word?

When Rodrigo and Iago are speaking with one another in Act 1 Scene 1, they discuss how Iago was not chosen for a promotion and instead a mathemitician, Michael Cassilo was. "...Michael Cassio, a Florentine that never set a squadron in the field, nor the division of a battle knows more than a spinster, unless the bookish theoretic...Mere prattle without practice is all his soldiership...and I ( of whom his eyes had seen proof at Rhodes, at Cyprus and on other grounds Christened and heathen) must be beleed and calmed by debtor and creditor" (4). In other word's Iago had not been chosen to recieve this promotion because someone who had been more educated would have been thought to do better in this military setting. However, one has to wonder what sense this makes. Iago has had more experience in actual battle than Michael and should be more suited for the promotion. What had to have won over Othello in his decision is idealism.

In a perfect world, Michael's education probaly would help hijm in strategy and make him a better candidate than Iago. Unfortunately though, the world is not perfect. The battle field is not always a perfect place. War involves much improvising and acting quickly. Often the difference between life and death is separated by just a second or two. There is no time for a "bookish theoretic" who has no experience in war to start making new battle formations or designing mathematical models to understand why a cannon may not be hitting its normal trajectory. If the enemy is overruning the trenches, one might just have to pick up a gun and fight his way out. A textbook will not save you. Iago would have been better suited for this situation.

Besides idealism, I think that argument of change and tradition may also play a role in situations like Iago's. One can argue that Othello went against tradition and chose the mathemitician because of the unconventional skill that mathematics would provide. If this is true, then one might wonder if throughout history and literature if the words "new", "change" and "unconventional" have had some inherently good meaning. Analyzing this now, I think I have always had a positive connotation for these words. However, by strict deffinition, these words are just used to describe something that was previously unavailable or attainable. It could be either good or bad. Michael's math could have also hurt the Italian army there is no guarantee that it would help it.

Over spring break I watched a Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge that had a similar theme. Eastwood played the role of an old, "washed up" Korean and Vietnam War veteran named Sergeant Highway. Although this character had many years of experience and in the military, he recieved little respect mainly due to his age. The younger marines mocked him for his age. When he decided to take a job training new, youthful marines, this is especially evident. One fellow officer remarked, "I ask for marines but the division sends me relics." Fortunately for Highway, he proves his worth throughout the movie including one of the last scenes of bootcamp. He fights the other marine who made a remark about his age. Highway punches the young marine in the face and knocks him out. Eventually he becomes the hero of the movie and shows that with age comes experience.

I think this idea of novelness and tradition pertain to our present day lives very much. This is the case especially with the primary elections. One candidate in particular who likes to preach about change is Barr0ck Obama (I know I can't spell it). In fact this seems to be his campaign motto. I think Obama is a qualified candidate, but I am not sure I like change in everything. Im sure change can be positive at times and it could be for the better, but it could also be for the worst. Obama talks about how drastical change is great and what our country needs. After thinking about Heartbreak Ridge and Othello, Im not so sure. In those two examples, the character who would have done the better job would have been the traditional and more conservative type. Why do we need a brand new president to change everything? Our country is in the best and most stable economic shape in the world. Why not have a president who keeps everything the same? I know this is cliche and over-used, but "Why fix something if it ain't broke?'

This is the trailer for the movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eM8dd1k0FM&feature=related

This is Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp30iKrRafQ&feature=related

Gender and Ancient Times

In book nine, I found a few instances which Augustine wrote about that seemed to show certain attitudes about gender in ancient Roman times. These examples give evidence that women were very much subservient to men in this time period. The Roman Empire was clearly a patriarchal society.

When discussing his mother's early life Augustine says, "When she reached the age for marriage, and was bestowed upon a husband, she served him as her lord" (176). Two sequences of this quote prove to the reader that there was a male-dominated society during this time. First Augustine uses the word choice "bestowed upon a husband" to describe how his mother met a man and married him. This wording implies that the women in a marriage had no choice who she would be married to. In fact, it seems as though she is some kind of commodity. She is the property of the husband and clearly below him in importance. Next he says "she served him as her lord" now it is unmistakable that the woman served man in this society. Man was her "lord."

Another example of the idea of male superiority occurs when Augustine writes about his mother and father's relationship. He says, "...[his mother] knew that a woman must not resist a husband in anger, by deed or even by word" (176). The husband is again pictured as the ruler of the household. The wife must submit to his wishes even when she disagrees with him. The wife must put aside her welfare for the sake of his temper. The man is of more importance than the woman. The male dominates the society.

When recanting how his mother had passed away, he says how Adeodatus was upset. "As she breathed her last, the child Adeodatus broke out into lamentation and we all checked him and brought him to silence. But in this very fact the childish element in me, which was breaking out into tears, was checked and brought to silence by the manlier voice of my mind" (181). In this Augustine has a notion of a "manly" stereotype that he must abide to. If he cries for his mother, then he appears to be weak, childish, effeminate, and "bad" in the eyes of his patriarchal society. Although Adeodatus was only admonished for crying, he was a child. Had Augustine cried, he would have been embarrassed because weeping is an "unmanly" action. Clearly Augustine lives in a patriarchal society that values "manliness."

Rome was a male-dominated society. This is reflected in the writings of Augustine. Although these writings are spiritual in nature, they can still be used as a window into the social values of this time. This "window" provides the reader with the ideas of what the roman man should be: strong, tough and the ruler of the household. On the other hand, Augustine's work shows the characteristics of what the woman should be: weak and subservient to man. These two stereotypes of gender coincide with the characteristics of a patriarchal society.

True Wisdom

"...Be not desirous to seem wise, for those who affirm themselves to be wise become fools" (142).
True wisdom was the topic i wrote about in my first paper for core class. I described true wisdom as the ability to know one's limits as far as his ability is concerned and to accept constructive criticism from others. Pride tends to inflate ones sense of his abilities. Many will think that they are correct when it comes to all subject matters and will not take criticism from others. I felt that this quote from Augustine really relates to what I had been trying to say through my paper.

Often we feel superiority over other people because of certain accolades we have. We consider ourselves to be above certain people and because of this refuse to take advice from them. I have noticed throughout my experiences that I have struggled with this concept. Although I have become better at listening to others ideas, I had not always been this way.

When I was younger, I hated listening to other people criticize me and I could not stand taking advice from others. I was very stubborn and almost dogmatic in the belief that my input in anything was far more valuable than that of my peers. Many times I probably angered my peers because I had been condescending to them. I always found it humiliating to have to listen to other people.

Only when I was in high school did I start to change my ways. I realized that the more criticisms I received, the better a person I would become. The more perspectives one can receive on a certain issue, the better off he will be. The more perspectives he will receive, the more chances he will find an error in whatever he is seeking to accomplish. I have found that by accepting other's criticism I have become a better friend, son and student. In entirety, I feel I have become a better person.

Conflict of Mind Against Body

"...I had read, how the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. I was indeed in both camps..." (148). I also am indeed in both camps. Often when I make decisions throughout the day, even the most common place decisions, I feel an inner conflict between my body and my mind like Augustine did. Whether it be making the decision to study or workout, the mind tells one that participating in these activities is the correct thing to do. However, the body speaks to one contrarily. In the case of studying, the body does not wish to sit for hours memorizing and typing tedious papers. As for working out, the body instinctively does not want to be forced to expend large amounts of energy to make it tired. The body would rather eat and just lay down. In my particular case, the I think the mind is usually the victor, but in some situations the body does conquer my will.

Unfortunately, I cannot always discipline myself. I find that when it comes to forcing myself to eat healthily, I cannot win the battle between the mind and the body. When I have a craving for spaghetti, lasagna or any other Italian food I almost always give in to eating it. I know I should eat healthier and eat more fruits and vegetables, but my body overwhelms the will of my mind.

I think that this conflict of mind and body is a major cause of the stress and unhappiness in our lives. However, we have to force ourselves to live well by studying and being healthy. Personally, I dread long tests, papers, vegetables, and running five miles, but I realize its important to do so. I notice as I've grown older and matured, getting better at winning the battle between the body and the mind has helped me to become a more complete person.

College

Augustine says, "...I got no joy from my learning, but sought only to please men by it..." (102). I think this realization of Augustine's can apply to many college students. Attending college is not required necessarily by law, but it pleases parents and a college degree appears honorable. Honor also comes with the college one attends. For example, Harvard University would be much more prestigious than a community college or even the University of Richmond. I cannot name one college student that genuinely enjoys writing term papers, lab reports and attending 8:15 classes. Although college is not necessarily compulsory, it is definitely not something one would attend if he did not have to. One attends college because it pleases others.