DUE TUE 5/15 Pericles Funeral Oration
Continue reading "Pericles Funeral Oration" up to p. 148 (bottom of page, section 42 line 10).
Make a list of some of the Athenian values that you encountered in the text. Choose one and write a couple of sentences (or more) about why it might be good for the trial of Socrates.We are not going to read the rest of the oration, so if you are interested you should read the rest on your own. We will move on to the Apology of Plato.
- They view themselves as a model to the rest of society.
- They are aware that they have an advanced government and knew a lot about it, as well as their own lives and interests.
- They try not to ask for help and solve/get things done on their own.
I think this would be good point in the debate because their way of life clashes with Socrates' opinions. In a way that means that he would be the only one who opposes them, which could result in a all to one ratio, not in Socrates' favor.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Due Wed 4/25 "Jigsaw Activity"
Due Wed 4/25 "Jigsaw Activity"
Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.
I read about whether or not the Press should be censored during the current war on terror. A good resolution would be: "The press should stay censored during the War on Terror because it will panic the masses."
Explain why it is an important topic.
This topic could impact your daily life by you not knowing everything that is going on in your country. It is hard to avoid information given to you and who purposely doesnt watch the news? Most adults and/or teenagers watch the news and when they get the story; good or bad, they want the whole story, not false hope or worring that is unnessacery.
Q: Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side:
Con Side:
- The people of America always have a right to know what's going on with their own country and military.
- Military families will be at ease knowing the whole and honest truth to what is going on in the war.
Pro Side:
- Even though Americans have the right to know the truth, the dont really need it.
- Seeing soldiers dead or American planes exploding wouldn't be good for the families of America.
Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.
I read about whether or not the Press should be censored during the current war on terror. A good resolution would be: "The press should stay censored during the War on Terror because it will panic the masses."
Explain why it is an important topic.
This topic could impact your daily life by you not knowing everything that is going on in your country. It is hard to avoid information given to you and who purposely doesnt watch the news? Most adults and/or teenagers watch the news and when they get the story; good or bad, they want the whole story, not false hope or worring that is unnessacery.
Q: Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side:
Con Side:
- The people of America always have a right to know what's going on with their own country and military.
- Military families will be at ease knowing the whole and honest truth to what is going on in the war.
Pro Side:
- Even though Americans have the right to know the truth, the dont really need it.
- Seeing soldiers dead or American planes exploding wouldn't be good for the families of America.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The press in times of crisis
Due Tuesday 4/24 - The press in times of crisis
i wrote this by hand, so i will sometime put it in here....
I DID IT THOUGH!
promise!
i wrote this by hand, so i will sometime put it in here....
I DID IT THOUGH!
promise!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Viewpoints 4/23
DUE MONDAY 4/23 Viewpoints
Read the handouts, chapters 1 and 2 (i.e. "Viewpoints 1 and 2").
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1. For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
America is falling apart because of peoples' need to express themselves so much. People violate the limitations of what is protected by the government (what they will back you up on). On top of all this, the youth of our nation finds ways to access to things that corrupt them at a very young age. (for example; myspace, blogs, and the music kids listen to these days can be VERY conturversal and/or racist/homophobic/sexist as well as simply rebeling)
2. For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
Without the ability to say what we want, so many ideas and opinions would never get out to the world, and even if they did, chances are they would be either shot down, or not paied attention to. America is rebellious, if you give them strict rules; they are bound to break them. It took the founding people of our country a long time to develop the rights in which American Citizens have and those rights should stay in effect, the Ammendments.
3. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I think that many people, especially the younger generations, take advantage of their rights. They feel that they can say whatever they want, and if anyone tries to stop them, they can argue that they have "freedom of speech." I think there should be a certain point in which Citizens can be punished for over stepping the boundaries. But I think the real question is; where do the boundaries end? Of corse, when the words you say results in voilence, but what if it just promotes hatred? Free speech mixing with American citizens is never going to be settled, in my opinion at least.
Read the handouts, chapters 1 and 2 (i.e. "Viewpoints 1 and 2").
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1. For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
America is falling apart because of peoples' need to express themselves so much. People violate the limitations of what is protected by the government (what they will back you up on). On top of all this, the youth of our nation finds ways to access to things that corrupt them at a very young age. (for example; myspace, blogs, and the music kids listen to these days can be VERY conturversal and/or racist/homophobic/sexist as well as simply rebeling)
2. For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
Without the ability to say what we want, so many ideas and opinions would never get out to the world, and even if they did, chances are they would be either shot down, or not paied attention to. America is rebellious, if you give them strict rules; they are bound to break them. It took the founding people of our country a long time to develop the rights in which American Citizens have and those rights should stay in effect, the Ammendments.
3. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I think that many people, especially the younger generations, take advantage of their rights. They feel that they can say whatever they want, and if anyone tries to stop them, they can argue that they have "freedom of speech." I think there should be a certain point in which Citizens can be punished for over stepping the boundaries. But I think the real question is; where do the boundaries end? Of corse, when the words you say results in voilence, but what if it just promotes hatred? Free speech mixing with American citizens is never going to be settled, in my opinion at least.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
4/19 Don Imus Controversy
DUE THUR 4/19 Don Imus Controversy
ANSWER ALL THREE QUESTIONS and post on your blog. Don't forget to put the questions in bold.
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP thinks that Imus should be silenced, one, for his rude remarks which are ractist as well as sexist and homophobic. More specifically though, what he said about the female Rutgers Basketball team. Not only do they say he is a problem because of his recent words, but he has also been making such comments for years, and they think it is finally time to do something about it.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich believes that Don Imus should not be silenced because he considers it freedom of speech. Also, he mentions that Imus didn’t make crude remarks to one minority group, but several, so it isnt like he is targeting one specific group. He also says that it is Imus' free speech although it is true that CBS has a right to censor it because it is also what they want to be seen as supporting.
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
Personally I think they are blowing what he has done WAY out of purportion. I mean, yes, he shouldnt have said what he said, but is it really nessacary to ban him from his work/talent? I think not. I definatley understand that people are offended by what he says, but plenty of other people say things that arent even paied attention to. Yes, he should have had the common sense not to say the things he did/does but he did addmit that what he has done is finially coming back to bite him in the ass.
Another thing that i dont understand is that why is it such a big deal about what he said when other people out there have music and TV have things that are much worse. Also the african american population seems to freak out more than they should when something "offends" them. Although, they seem to think they can say whatever they want about caucasion people. I really dont think it should matter the color of your skin. THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU JUST CANT SAY! That means no matter what. Yes, if you are black and say something negativly to a white person, we should be able to say something back, disregaurding what might "offend" them. IT IS 2007 PEOPLE! NOT way back when where the african americans were slaves. I can understand the "N word" and how that shouldnt be used, because of where that word originated, but think about it. Why should they be able to say something about how bad/annoying/stupid/etc. a white person is and nothing is done? BUT when we say something about them... all hell is let loose. It just doesnt seem fair to me.
These days people of color/different race (other than white) always joke around and say things like "OH YOU'RE SO RACIST!" when I dont let them borrow a pencil for example... But GET REAL ALREADY! They flip out on the little things, even if it is in a joking matter. NO, I am not racist, I just think if someone says something "morally wrong" they should get punished equally, no matter what. What I am getting at is that Imus shouldnt get punished in such derastic measures, because sadly that fact is... And we all know it, that if a black person had an online air show putting down white people nothing would happen. It is unfortunate how they use our country's history to their advantage when racism hardly is even a big deal anymore. Yes, it still goes on, but NOTHING like how it used to be.
Basically people, of all races, need to GET OVER THEMSELVES and act like mature citizens of the United States. We all live here and need to get along. I think that all remarks, like the ones Imus has said, should just be kept to themselves OR to an audince who wants to hear it. Dont get it mixed in with people who get offended because all it causes is problems.
ANSWER ALL THREE QUESTIONS and post on your blog. Don't forget to put the questions in bold.
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP thinks that Imus should be silenced, one, for his rude remarks which are ractist as well as sexist and homophobic. More specifically though, what he said about the female Rutgers Basketball team. Not only do they say he is a problem because of his recent words, but he has also been making such comments for years, and they think it is finally time to do something about it.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich believes that Don Imus should not be silenced because he considers it freedom of speech. Also, he mentions that Imus didn’t make crude remarks to one minority group, but several, so it isnt like he is targeting one specific group. He also says that it is Imus' free speech although it is true that CBS has a right to censor it because it is also what they want to be seen as supporting.
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
Personally I think they are blowing what he has done WAY out of purportion. I mean, yes, he shouldnt have said what he said, but is it really nessacary to ban him from his work/talent? I think not. I definatley understand that people are offended by what he says, but plenty of other people say things that arent even paied attention to. Yes, he should have had the common sense not to say the things he did/does but he did addmit that what he has done is finially coming back to bite him in the ass.
Another thing that i dont understand is that why is it such a big deal about what he said when other people out there have music and TV have things that are much worse. Also the african american population seems to freak out more than they should when something "offends" them. Although, they seem to think they can say whatever they want about caucasion people. I really dont think it should matter the color of your skin. THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU JUST CANT SAY! That means no matter what. Yes, if you are black and say something negativly to a white person, we should be able to say something back, disregaurding what might "offend" them. IT IS 2007 PEOPLE! NOT way back when where the african americans were slaves. I can understand the "N word" and how that shouldnt be used, because of where that word originated, but think about it. Why should they be able to say something about how bad/annoying/stupid/etc. a white person is and nothing is done? BUT when we say something about them... all hell is let loose. It just doesnt seem fair to me.
These days people of color/different race (other than white) always joke around and say things like "OH YOU'RE SO RACIST!" when I dont let them borrow a pencil for example... But GET REAL ALREADY! They flip out on the little things, even if it is in a joking matter. NO, I am not racist, I just think if someone says something "morally wrong" they should get punished equally, no matter what. What I am getting at is that Imus shouldnt get punished in such derastic measures, because sadly that fact is... And we all know it, that if a black person had an online air show putting down white people nothing would happen. It is unfortunate how they use our country's history to their advantage when racism hardly is even a big deal anymore. Yes, it still goes on, but NOTHING like how it used to be.
Basically people, of all races, need to GET OVER THEMSELVES and act like mature citizens of the United States. We all live here and need to get along. I think that all remarks, like the ones Imus has said, should just be kept to themselves OR to an audince who wants to hear it. Dont get it mixed in with people who get offended because all it causes is problems.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
4/18 Plato Reading
DUE WED 4/18 Plato Reading and Blog
Read all of section c. pp. 85-93 (start where the section begins on the bottom)
Answer one of the following questions or develop your own. Post the response on your blog. Don’t forget to include the question in bold on your blog.
2. What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?
I think by illimatinating art as a form or expression, Socrates is basically asking for an outcry from the people. Citizens will want to be able to do what they want more if there are rules saying you cant do it. The overall outcome of saying that Art isnt a true way to make a difference will back fire.
Read all of section c. pp. 85-93 (start where the section begins on the bottom)
Answer one of the following questions or develop your own. Post the response on your blog. Don’t forget to include the question in bold on your blog.
2. What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?
I think by illimatinating art as a form or expression, Socrates is basically asking for an outcry from the people. Citizens will want to be able to do what they want more if there are rules saying you cant do it. The overall outcome of saying that Art isnt a true way to make a difference will back fire.
Monday, March 26, 2007
3/27 Republic Assignment
DUE TUE 3/27 Republic Assignment
The Republic, Part III Education, Section 1. pp. 67-76
1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people would want Homer censored because he brings out the light of peoples bad habits and doings. For example in the Iliad, there is killing, stealing, raping, hurting, cursing. All of these terrible things. I think that people would want this censored is because they are happy thinking that they are the greatest nation of all. They want to think that they only do good, and that the Gods only do good.
Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)
2. Short Answers
a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Representing the Gods as deceitful and troublesome.
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
The first main characteristic of "god" is that god is not the cause of all, but only good.
The second main characteristic of the gods is to never show deceit.
3. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
Well, pretty darn close :D
The Republic, Part III Education, Section 1. pp. 67-76
1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people would want Homer censored because he brings out the light of peoples bad habits and doings. For example in the Iliad, there is killing, stealing, raping, hurting, cursing. All of these terrible things. I think that people would want this censored is because they are happy thinking that they are the greatest nation of all. They want to think that they only do good, and that the Gods only do good.
Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)
2. Short Answers
a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Representing the Gods as deceitful and troublesome.
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
The first main characteristic of "god" is that god is not the cause of all, but only good.
The second main characteristic of the gods is to never show deceit.
3. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
Well, pretty darn close :D
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Prep for Seminar
DUE THR 3/22 - Prep for Seminar
DUE THR 3/22
Prepare for Socratic Seminar by writing at least one-half page on at least one of the following prompts, or create your own prompt.
3) Does might make right?
If I understand this prompt correctly, "might" is referring to someone's ability or power in a certain situation or society. I think that might does not "make" what is right. It should not just be people who are higher in rank, it should be your own decision, although there are some cons to that. Some people, disregarding their social classes, have better, or more sophisticated ideas and reasoning on different subjects. For example, a normal person might have a really strong argument on a touchy topic that could sway many other people's opinions. On the other hand most citizens see the people who are above them as being these smarter people, which most times they are equally intelligent.
I see that many want to basically hide behind other opinions and they feel like they must agree. A quote from Fahrenheit 451 I thought had relevance to this topic. “So now do you see why books are hated and feared? They show the pores in the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, and expressionless. We are living in a time when flowers are trying to live on flowers, instead of growing on good rain and black loam. Even fireworks, for all their prettiness, come from the chemistry on earth. Yet somehow we think we can grow, feeding on flowers and fireworks, without completing the cycle back to reality." They sometimes just want the easy way out of things, compared to saying what they believe or think is right. I even think we can relate it to people in our class. I’m sure some of the people who hardly speak in the Socratic seminars have a lot to say, but they are either to shy or scared that the more “dominate” people might not take their ideas into consideration. But, I feel that everyone had the right to say what they think, and whether that is taken into consideration by the people is up to society.
Another thing is that is it very hard, if not impossible to have opinions. However, it is even more impossible for those opinions to not be shot down by other contradicting voice. Although, if you don’t put it out there to be heard, how can you know that it won’t make an impact on someone, or something? If everyone doesn’t take the initiative and stand out, not to be a shadow in the background crowd, anyone can decide what is “right” and morally just. Make your voice count, is what I think, because at any moment in time, the chance to speak up might be bluntly taken away from you.
DUE THR 3/22
Prepare for Socratic Seminar by writing at least one-half page on at least one of the following prompts, or create your own prompt.
3) Does might make right?
If I understand this prompt correctly, "might" is referring to someone's ability or power in a certain situation or society. I think that might does not "make" what is right. It should not just be people who are higher in rank, it should be your own decision, although there are some cons to that. Some people, disregarding their social classes, have better, or more sophisticated ideas and reasoning on different subjects. For example, a normal person might have a really strong argument on a touchy topic that could sway many other people's opinions. On the other hand most citizens see the people who are above them as being these smarter people, which most times they are equally intelligent.
I see that many want to basically hide behind other opinions and they feel like they must agree. A quote from Fahrenheit 451 I thought had relevance to this topic. “So now do you see why books are hated and feared? They show the pores in the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, and expressionless. We are living in a time when flowers are trying to live on flowers, instead of growing on good rain and black loam. Even fireworks, for all their prettiness, come from the chemistry on earth. Yet somehow we think we can grow, feeding on flowers and fireworks, without completing the cycle back to reality." They sometimes just want the easy way out of things, compared to saying what they believe or think is right. I even think we can relate it to people in our class. I’m sure some of the people who hardly speak in the Socratic seminars have a lot to say, but they are either to shy or scared that the more “dominate” people might not take their ideas into consideration. But, I feel that everyone had the right to say what they think, and whether that is taken into consideration by the people is up to society.
Another thing is that is it very hard, if not impossible to have opinions. However, it is even more impossible for those opinions to not be shot down by other contradicting voice. Although, if you don’t put it out there to be heard, how can you know that it won’t make an impact on someone, or something? If everyone doesn’t take the initiative and stand out, not to be a shadow in the background crowd, anyone can decide what is “right” and morally just. Make your voice count, is what I think, because at any moment in time, the chance to speak up might be bluntly taken away from you.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
3/21 Republic Assignment
DUE WED 3/21 Republic Assignment
Don’t forget to cut/paste the questions and answers and to post them on your blog with the questions in bold.
Print out your work and keep it in your binder so you can reference it in class.
Read the italics on p. 37 (that's right, only one paragraph). Read the rest of the section, up to p. 40, if you like. It is not required.
As you read, remember that function means purpose. When Socrates talks about a person or a thing’s “function” he means his/her/its purpose. The function of a student is to learn, the function of a knife is to cut etc…Minimum one long paragraph
Prompt: In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?
As usual you can develop your own prompt. If you do, keep in mind the guidelines I have written in the previous blogs.If you are stuck with this section and cannot write anything about happiness and justice, then you can develop your own prompt based on another section from the Plato readings.
response:
Personally, i think the only person who can decide if you are just or not, and it is you. Everyone has a conscience. Everyone knows right from wrong, and if you choose to be "true" to yourself then you know that you are doing good. If you do "wrong", most of us feel a little guilty. In life, there is always going to be someone who disagrees with someone else. No matter if it is on the topic of being just, religion, or politics, etc. I think that no matter what, you and only yourself, can be your true inner opinion on the topic of being "just." It's one of those things where whatever you have to say, there is always going to be a voice to contradict yours. It is so frustrating to try and make your point across. Socrates is lucky because in that day in time so many important people were so easily persuaded to believe in what he believes. Although this day in age, it is much, much harder. Everyone has their own say in things and argueing about it usually just starts conflict. I have come to the conclusion that what i think is just, is waht i think is just, so if i can be that, then thats all that matters. If someone else doesnt approve of that, thats just too bad because, quite frankly, i could care less.
screw da haters :D
Don’t forget to cut/paste the questions and answers and to post them on your blog with the questions in bold.
Print out your work and keep it in your binder so you can reference it in class.
Read the italics on p. 37 (that's right, only one paragraph). Read the rest of the section, up to p. 40, if you like. It is not required.
As you read, remember that function means purpose. When Socrates talks about a person or a thing’s “function” he means his/her/its purpose. The function of a student is to learn, the function of a knife is to cut etc…Minimum one long paragraph
Prompt: In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?
As usual you can develop your own prompt. If you do, keep in mind the guidelines I have written in the previous blogs.If you are stuck with this section and cannot write anything about happiness and justice, then you can develop your own prompt based on another section from the Plato readings.
response:
Personally, i think the only person who can decide if you are just or not, and it is you. Everyone has a conscience. Everyone knows right from wrong, and if you choose to be "true" to yourself then you know that you are doing good. If you do "wrong", most of us feel a little guilty. In life, there is always going to be someone who disagrees with someone else. No matter if it is on the topic of being just, religion, or politics, etc. I think that no matter what, you and only yourself, can be your true inner opinion on the topic of being "just." It's one of those things where whatever you have to say, there is always going to be a voice to contradict yours. It is so frustrating to try and make your point across. Socrates is lucky because in that day in time so many important people were so easily persuaded to believe in what he believes. Although this day in age, it is much, much harder. Everyone has their own say in things and argueing about it usually just starts conflict. I have come to the conclusion that what i think is just, is waht i think is just, so if i can be that, then thats all that matters. If someone else doesnt approve of that, thats just too bad because, quite frankly, i could care less.
screw da haters :D
Monday, March 19, 2007
Republic Assignment 3/20
Due Tuesday, 3/20 Republic Assignment
Read The Republic pp. 15-29 (that’s 14 pages)
1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
Well, from what I understood, Thrasymachus was saying that it is up to the leader to define justice, or whatever the leader tells you, that us justice. Socrates comes back at him by saying that what if the leader makes a mistake while giving an order? What if he makes a decision that will benefit the leader, but not the people, is that still justice?
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymachus' two main points are that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" and that "injustice is the interest and profit of oneself." Socrates points were that "no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it" and "all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves."
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I honestly think it depends on the situation. If harming someone is being used as a self defense is completely different if you were hurting someone for no reason; not enough of a good reason. Also if harming this person is the best for the majority of the people, there could be some exceptions. Basically, by using your common sence you can desyfer whether harming someone could be along the lines of being "right" or flat out, morally "wrong." It all revolves around opinions.
Read The Republic pp. 15-29 (that’s 14 pages)
1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
Well, from what I understood, Thrasymachus was saying that it is up to the leader to define justice, or whatever the leader tells you, that us justice. Socrates comes back at him by saying that what if the leader makes a mistake while giving an order? What if he makes a decision that will benefit the leader, but not the people, is that still justice?
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymachus' two main points are that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" and that "injustice is the interest and profit of oneself." Socrates points were that "no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it" and "all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves."
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I honestly think it depends on the situation. If harming someone is being used as a self defense is completely different if you were hurting someone for no reason; not enough of a good reason. Also if harming this person is the best for the majority of the people, there could be some exceptions. Basically, by using your common sence you can desyfer whether harming someone could be along the lines of being "right" or flat out, morally "wrong." It all revolves around opinions.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Friends
2. Blog entry: “Personal Reflection 3/16” – Since Socratic philosophy is largely about definitions, lets start with some of our own. In one paragraph (or more) define what a friend is and how you should act towards a friend. Instead of that, you can write a paragraph (or more) that defines what an enemy is and how you should act towards an enemy. Of course you can also write about both if you like.
A friend:
I am stumbling on how to start this off, because it is hard to explain what a friend truly is. I think it is someone who you feel comfortable around and enjoy spending time with, but you share more than just the “hey, what’s up?” with them. A friend is someone who you do stuff with and whatever it is, it ends up being fun because you can just simply enjoy each other’s company. Although friends are special people and mean a lot more than the random acquaintance, a best friend is something completely different. I would say, personally, I have 4 best friends. I can tell them anything and everything about me. From what you ate that day to your deepest secrets. Sometimes when you feel down all it takes in that text message or phone call that means the world and makes me feel ten times better. You can confide in them, and you know, they will always be there in the end. Whether you get in pointless fights, or don’t see each other for weeks at a time, you know when you do something wrong, no matter what they will be standing by your side. True friends are like family, you love them unconditionally even when they make you angry. You make up, and get over those stupid arguments and afterwards it makes your bond stronger. Friends are wonderful to have in your life, but best friends are a necessity.
A friend:
I am stumbling on how to start this off, because it is hard to explain what a friend truly is. I think it is someone who you feel comfortable around and enjoy spending time with, but you share more than just the “hey, what’s up?” with them. A friend is someone who you do stuff with and whatever it is, it ends up being fun because you can just simply enjoy each other’s company. Although friends are special people and mean a lot more than the random acquaintance, a best friend is something completely different. I would say, personally, I have 4 best friends. I can tell them anything and everything about me. From what you ate that day to your deepest secrets. Sometimes when you feel down all it takes in that text message or phone call that means the world and makes me feel ten times better. You can confide in them, and you know, they will always be there in the end. Whether you get in pointless fights, or don’t see each other for weeks at a time, you know when you do something wrong, no matter what they will be standing by your side. True friends are like family, you love them unconditionally even when they make you angry. You make up, and get over those stupid arguments and afterwards it makes your bond stronger. Friends are wonderful to have in your life, but best friends are a necessity.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Plato Assignment 3/16
DUE FRI 3/16 Personal Reflection and Plato Assignment
Read The Republic Part I Section 2. “The Conventional View of Justice Developed” pp. 8-15
Answer question(s) from one or more of the sections that follow.
Short responses 2-5 sentences
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
Part of his definition is much improved from his fathers definition of "paying ones debts and telling the truth." That statement is very general, and has a lot of cons in it. The idea of helping ones friends is of course, good, but by only helping your friends doesnt make you just. I think hurting ones enemies is very unjust, unless good can come from it, which also goes into whether harming someone can be "right".
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?Simonides definition of justice is to give everyone their dues and telling the truth. Polemarchus thinks of this as helping friends and hurting enemies, which I guess, is true.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates says that a man with justice wouldn't intentionally hurt anyone, regardless of if they are a friend or an enemy, because hurting anyone intentionally is very unjust.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think he is trying to prove that wisdom comes with age, and the younger generation is more easily persuaded then the elderly.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?
Socrates is more convincing. He has examples to back up his stance, which is obviously a strong argument tactic. He is also known to be a philosopher, which gives him an intelligence advantage, because Polemarchus is young, and much less wise then Socrates.
(As we can see Socrates influences many of the philosophers in the republic, with hardly any effort)
Read The Republic Part I Section 2. “The Conventional View of Justice Developed” pp. 8-15
Answer question(s) from one or more of the sections that follow.
Short responses 2-5 sentences
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
Part of his definition is much improved from his fathers definition of "paying ones debts and telling the truth." That statement is very general, and has a lot of cons in it. The idea of helping ones friends is of course, good, but by only helping your friends doesnt make you just. I think hurting ones enemies is very unjust, unless good can come from it, which also goes into whether harming someone can be "right".
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?Simonides definition of justice is to give everyone their dues and telling the truth. Polemarchus thinks of this as helping friends and hurting enemies, which I guess, is true.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates says that a man with justice wouldn't intentionally hurt anyone, regardless of if they are a friend or an enemy, because hurting anyone intentionally is very unjust.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think he is trying to prove that wisdom comes with age, and the younger generation is more easily persuaded then the elderly.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?
Socrates is more convincing. He has examples to back up his stance, which is obviously a strong argument tactic. He is also known to be a philosopher, which gives him an intelligence advantage, because Polemarchus is young, and much less wise then Socrates.
(As we can see Socrates influences many of the philosophers in the republic, with hardly any effort)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Similie of the Cave Reading Questions
UE THUR, 3/15 Similie of the Cave Reading Questions
Reading Questions
Plato. “The Simile of the Cave.” The Republic.
1. Socrates asks Glaucon to suppose that one of the prisoners is freed and leaves the cave (p. 242 section 515d). What happens to the prisoner when he gets outside? Why does this happen to the prisoner?
The prisoner can’t look up because he is so used to being in the cave with no light. Socrates and Glaucon said it would be the easiest for the prisoner to see shadows because that is what he was used to seeing. Then he will move up to being able to see the reflections of himself and other people in the water. After he would be able to see the actual objects. The prisoner would move up slowly to see the actual objects and be able to live like the normal people. Then he would be able to look at the sun itself without blinking.
2. Socrates states that the prisoners would try to kill anyone who tries to liberate them and lead them out of the cave (pp. 243 – 244 section 517a). Why would the prisoners kill someone who is trying to lead them outside?
The prisoners are happy with the way they are. They don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want to realize that what they thought was the truth is a lie. So the prisoners didn’t want to be led out of the cave in fear that they didn’t know anything else other then pointing at the shadows and knowing what they were.
3. While reading pages 243-244 (section 517) keep in mind that the cave represents the way society actually is, while the sun (visible outside the cave) represents knowledge that could make for a better society. Don't let the wording confuse you, Socrates sometimes calls the outside "the intelligible region" and associates it with "the divine." What is special about "the intelligible region" and why is it important for public servants/political leaders (p. 244 section 517 b and e)?
It is very important for the higher power because that is how they control the prisoners or the people below them. Because without it it would give the prisoners and people below the higher power room to think for themselves.
4. What is wrong with having uneducated people run society? What is wrong with having intellectuals (i.e. well-educated people) run society (p. 323 section 519c)?
Socrates says that things will never be properly governed if the uneducated dictact. The reason being that they would have no clue what to do or say. Because they are uneducated they need directing in everything they do.And Socrates says the problem with having intellectuals govern would be that they know many things. So they would think they were godly and just want everyone to serve beneath them. And the people would be too controlled.
5. On pp. 323 – 324 (section 519 section d – section 520) Socrates tells Glaucon what the "job" of a lawmaker is. What is the job of a lawmaker and how is a lawmaker supposed to influence the best minds?
What the law makers do is they listen to Socrates and Glaucon tell them about what is good and what is bad. They then take that and they spread to the people what they heard about the good and bad, which controlls them even more.
Reading Questions
Plato. “The Simile of the Cave.” The Republic.
1. Socrates asks Glaucon to suppose that one of the prisoners is freed and leaves the cave (p. 242 section 515d). What happens to the prisoner when he gets outside? Why does this happen to the prisoner?
The prisoner can’t look up because he is so used to being in the cave with no light. Socrates and Glaucon said it would be the easiest for the prisoner to see shadows because that is what he was used to seeing. Then he will move up to being able to see the reflections of himself and other people in the water. After he would be able to see the actual objects. The prisoner would move up slowly to see the actual objects and be able to live like the normal people. Then he would be able to look at the sun itself without blinking.
2. Socrates states that the prisoners would try to kill anyone who tries to liberate them and lead them out of the cave (pp. 243 – 244 section 517a). Why would the prisoners kill someone who is trying to lead them outside?
The prisoners are happy with the way they are. They don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want to realize that what they thought was the truth is a lie. So the prisoners didn’t want to be led out of the cave in fear that they didn’t know anything else other then pointing at the shadows and knowing what they were.
3. While reading pages 243-244 (section 517) keep in mind that the cave represents the way society actually is, while the sun (visible outside the cave) represents knowledge that could make for a better society. Don't let the wording confuse you, Socrates sometimes calls the outside "the intelligible region" and associates it with "the divine." What is special about "the intelligible region" and why is it important for public servants/political leaders (p. 244 section 517 b and e)?
It is very important for the higher power because that is how they control the prisoners or the people below them. Because without it it would give the prisoners and people below the higher power room to think for themselves.
4. What is wrong with having uneducated people run society? What is wrong with having intellectuals (i.e. well-educated people) run society (p. 323 section 519c)?
Socrates says that things will never be properly governed if the uneducated dictact. The reason being that they would have no clue what to do or say. Because they are uneducated they need directing in everything they do.And Socrates says the problem with having intellectuals govern would be that they know many things. So they would think they were godly and just want everyone to serve beneath them. And the people would be too controlled.
5. On pp. 323 – 324 (section 519 section d – section 520) Socrates tells Glaucon what the "job" of a lawmaker is. What is the job of a lawmaker and how is a lawmaker supposed to influence the best minds?
What the law makers do is they listen to Socrates and Glaucon tell them about what is good and what is bad. They then take that and they spread to the people what they heard about the good and bad, which controlls them even more.
Republic Assignment
DUE FRI, 3/16 Plato Assignment
Read: Part I Introduction, Prelude pp. 2-8 (all of the Prelude)
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Polemarchus is socrates friend. It is his house in which the scene from the book takes place. His father is Cephalus.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
He is a Business man.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
He was preparing/taking part in the daily sacrifice.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
As long as you are living a happy life at an old age, you should minimize you're intensity of your desires.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying one's debts.
What is Socrates response?
He replies with the point that this idea of justice, is not always just. He gives an example; if you were to borrow a weapon from a mad man, it would not be smart, or "justice" to return it to your friend, although returning it represents "paying ones debts." This meaning, sometimes you must break the law to be just/get justice.
II. Write a one paragraph response to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I think both have their strong points in the argument. I liked Socrates' example of the mad man and the weapon, but Cepheus' definition is in general, is true to me. It seems as though Socrates believes that if someone says something that he doesn't agree with, there has to be something wrong with their point of view. Socrates has yet to offer an alternative to his idea, and i doubt he plans on it.
Read: Part I Introduction, Prelude pp. 2-8 (all of the Prelude)
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Polemarchus is socrates friend. It is his house in which the scene from the book takes place. His father is Cephalus.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
He is a Business man.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
He was preparing/taking part in the daily sacrifice.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
As long as you are living a happy life at an old age, you should minimize you're intensity of your desires.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying one's debts.
What is Socrates response?
He replies with the point that this idea of justice, is not always just. He gives an example; if you were to borrow a weapon from a mad man, it would not be smart, or "justice" to return it to your friend, although returning it represents "paying ones debts." This meaning, sometimes you must break the law to be just/get justice.
II. Write a one paragraph response to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I think both have their strong points in the argument. I liked Socrates' example of the mad man and the weapon, but Cepheus' definition is in general, is true to me. It seems as though Socrates believes that if someone says something that he doesn't agree with, there has to be something wrong with their point of view. Socrates has yet to offer an alternative to his idea, and i doubt he plans on it.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Personal Reflection
DUE FRI 3/2 Personal Reflection
Write about a time that your pride had negative consequences
(or related to that, your inablity to forgive).
You can also write about someone else or write about pride in another book.
How was your pride, or the other person's, similiar or different to that of Achilles?
One time when I was was younger, probably in about 3rd of 4th grade, we used to have
Write about a time that your pride had negative consequences
(or related to that, your inablity to forgive).
You can also write about someone else or write about pride in another book.
How was your pride, or the other person's, similiar or different to that of Achilles?
One time when I was was younger, probably in about 3rd of 4th grade, we used to have
3/2 Iliad Assignment
DUE Friday 3/2 Iliad Assignment
Book 16 - Read pp. 434-441 lines 800 - end
Remember we are skiping the middle half, but you can read it if you like. It gives details of the battle and chronicles the accomplishments of Patroclus as he saves the Greek ships and leads the Greeks to the walls of Troy.
Simply summarize the main points and ask questions.
Period 4 - How do you think Achilles will respond? Predict what's going to happen next.
Main Points:
- Hector kills Patroclus with the help of Apollo.
- Before dieing Patroclus tells Hector that will kill him in the near future to seek revenge.
(Hector brushes these words off his shoulders and basically laughs in the face of danger)
No questions really because the text was pretty clear and i have already seen the movie "Troy" and know the main parts of the text, which were also clarrified by classmates while reading.
I think that Achilles is going to come back into the war because he had a very strong love for Patroclus and now he is dead, and he now will be pushed over the egde.
Also that what him mother told him, that he would not be returning from the war, is true and will happen in the reading sometime soon.
Book 16 - Read pp. 434-441 lines 800 - end
Remember we are skiping the middle half, but you can read it if you like. It gives details of the battle and chronicles the accomplishments of Patroclus as he saves the Greek ships and leads the Greeks to the walls of Troy.
Simply summarize the main points and ask questions.
Period 4 - How do you think Achilles will respond? Predict what's going to happen next.
Main Points:
- Hector kills Patroclus with the help of Apollo.
- Before dieing Patroclus tells Hector that will kill him in the near future to seek revenge.
(Hector brushes these words off his shoulders and basically laughs in the face of danger)
No questions really because the text was pretty clear and i have already seen the movie "Troy" and know the main parts of the text, which were also clarrified by classmates while reading.
I think that Achilles is going to come back into the war because he had a very strong love for Patroclus and now he is dead, and he now will be pushed over the egde.
Also that what him mother told him, that he would not be returning from the war, is true and will happen in the reading sometime soon.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
2/28 Iliad Assignment
DUE WED 2/28 Iliad Assignment
The Iliad Book 9 pp. 266-275 lines 521-869 (end of Book 9)
1. Write a question you have about the text, either an interpretive question that you have an opinion on, or something that you don't understand. You don't need to write the answer.
Does Phoenix's attempt to get at Achilles' emotions ever affect him in a way that would benefit the Achaean army? If so, how?
2. What was your opinion of Achilles before reading Book 9?
Before reading book 9 I had a point of view on Achilles where I would back him no matter what his decisons were, I think this may be because the author made him to fit into a more protagonist role. After reading this section my view on him really doesn't change, he is still the headstrong character that he was in the beginning. The only thing that I would say is different is that now he believes even more for his cause to boycott than he did earlier.
1. Appeal to reason (logic - does it “make sense” to do what the speaker says)
2. Appeal to emotion (does it try to make you happy, sad, angry etc… in an attempt to get you to act or think a certain way)
3. Appeal to ethics (right and wrong, moral principals - does it get you to think that a particular thought is morally right or wrong to get you to act or think a certain way)
Who is speaking?
Odysseus
What does the person say and to whom do they say it?
To the Achaens: "And the steady, long-enduring Odysseus replied, 'Great marshal Atrides, lord of men Agamemnon, that man has no intention of quenching his rage. he's still bursting with anger, more than ever- he spurns you, he spurns all your gifts. Work out your own defense, he says , you and your captains save the Argive armies and the ships. Himself? Achilles threatens tomorrow at first light, to haul his well-benched warships out to sea. And whats more, he advises all the rest, 'sail home now. You will never set your eyes on the day of doom that topples looming Troy. Thundering Zeus has spread his hands above her...her armies have taken heart.'"
What persuasive strategy is this? Evidence?
I think this is appeal to ethics. Odysseus is explaining to the army how bad he thinks that Agamemnon is. And he uses evidence against him that makes him look like he is not trustworthy. It makes the army not like him anymore.
Who is speaking:
Phoenix
What does this person say and to whom does he say it?
He is speaking to Achilles on lines 780-782: " Achilles, put some human kindness in your heart. Show respect for your own house."
What persuasive strategy is it? Evidence?
The persuasive strategy of appealing to ethics. Why it is an example of this strategy: I think that this is the persuasive strategy of appealing to ethics because in ancient Greek times, you were pledged to your house and you were loyal to them. It would be dishonorable and unethical for Achilles to go against his own house at this time, because it would mean that he was not loyal to his pledge.
The Iliad Book 9 pp. 266-275 lines 521-869 (end of Book 9)
1. Write a question you have about the text, either an interpretive question that you have an opinion on, or something that you don't understand. You don't need to write the answer.
Does Phoenix's attempt to get at Achilles' emotions ever affect him in a way that would benefit the Achaean army? If so, how?
2. What was your opinion of Achilles before reading Book 9?
Before reading book 9 I had a point of view on Achilles where I would back him no matter what his decisons were, I think this may be because the author made him to fit into a more protagonist role. After reading this section my view on him really doesn't change, he is still the headstrong character that he was in the beginning. The only thing that I would say is different is that now he believes even more for his cause to boycott than he did earlier.
1. Appeal to reason (logic - does it “make sense” to do what the speaker says)
2. Appeal to emotion (does it try to make you happy, sad, angry etc… in an attempt to get you to act or think a certain way)
3. Appeal to ethics (right and wrong, moral principals - does it get you to think that a particular thought is morally right or wrong to get you to act or think a certain way)
Who is speaking?
Odysseus
What does the person say and to whom do they say it?
To the Achaens: "And the steady, long-enduring Odysseus replied, 'Great marshal Atrides, lord of men Agamemnon, that man has no intention of quenching his rage. he's still bursting with anger, more than ever- he spurns you, he spurns all your gifts. Work out your own defense, he says , you and your captains save the Argive armies and the ships. Himself? Achilles threatens tomorrow at first light, to haul his well-benched warships out to sea. And whats more, he advises all the rest, 'sail home now. You will never set your eyes on the day of doom that topples looming Troy. Thundering Zeus has spread his hands above her...her armies have taken heart.'"
What persuasive strategy is this? Evidence?
I think this is appeal to ethics. Odysseus is explaining to the army how bad he thinks that Agamemnon is. And he uses evidence against him that makes him look like he is not trustworthy. It makes the army not like him anymore.
Who is speaking:
Phoenix
What does this person say and to whom does he say it?
He is speaking to Achilles on lines 780-782: " Achilles, put some human kindness in your heart. Show respect for your own house."
What persuasive strategy is it? Evidence?
The persuasive strategy of appealing to ethics. Why it is an example of this strategy: I think that this is the persuasive strategy of appealing to ethics because in ancient Greek times, you were pledged to your house and you were loyal to them. It would be dishonorable and unethical for Achilles to go against his own house at this time, because it would mean that he was not loyal to his pledge.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Iliad Assignment 1
DUE TUE 2/27 – Iliad Assignment
Read Book 9 - “The Embassy to Achilles” pp. 251-266 lines 1-522
You should answer these on your blog AND print them out and add them to your Iliad notes. If you don’t have a three-hole punch at home you can use the one at school. I would like to emphasize once again the importance of keeping your notes in one place – your binders. If you have notes scattered in your binder, your blog, and in a random notebook, they will be of no use to you when it comes time to prep for debate or write an essay. The same holds true if you don’t label your notes with the book number, page number, and line numbers etc…
1. Write a question. It can be an interpretive question that you have an opinion on or something about the text that you don't understand. You do not need to write the answer.
Question:
If you were Achilles What would be the reason for you to go and fight for your name would live on long after you die? Why would this be more important than haveing a full life with a family and happiness.
AND
2. What was your opinion of Agamemnon before reading this section? Does your opinion of him change after reading it? Why or why not? Aone paragraph reply is fine, minimum of 6 solid setneces, but you are encouraged to write more.
Before reading this section my opinion of Agamemnon was that he was this roothless king that cares so much about was prizes. Although in this section he says that he would rather five up his was prizes to have peace and have Achilles come back to fight for the Greeks. I think by doing this he is shown as weak and I don't think Achilles will, or for that matter should, agree, which he doesn't, because of how ignorantand expectant Agamemnon was of Achilles in book one. Another reason why I think Achilles will not take his gifts for an appology, which in fact Agamemnon is still not apologizing and saying he is the better man, mainly because he has already made up his mind about the war, and he deffinately isnt going to back down and change his mind for someone he hates, Agamemnon. Agamemnon is acting as if he is better than Achilles yet he is basically begging him to fight. Agamemnon doesnt realize he can't be forgiven that easily if even at all. He was clearly a coward because of his actions in book one, and quite frankly still is in book two.
AND
3. At various points in the text some characters attempt to persuade other characters to take a course of action. Examples of characters using persuasion include Nestor, Odysseus, and Ajax. Make a list of the persuasive strategy used by these characters, following this format:
Who is speaking?
What does that person say and to whom does he say it?
What persuasive strategy is it?
Why is it an example of that strategy?
Do this at least three times with different examples.
Remember the persuasive strategies include:
1. Appeal to reason (logic - does it “make sense” to do what the speaker says)
2. Appeal to emotion (does it try to make you happy, sad, angry etc… in an attempt to get you to act or think a certain way)
3. Appeal to ethics (right and wrong, moral principals - does it get you to think that a particular thought is morally right or wrong to get you to act or think a certain way)
1) on page: 252...
Diomedes tells his people, the Greeks, to stay on the beach of Troy, against Agamemnon's wishes. He appeals to the men's emotions and makes sure they know if they leave the will lose some of their pride and honor.
2) on page: 255...
Agamemnon tries to make Achilles join the war once again by appealing to his ethics and telling him it is what is right and what he should do to help his people. He also uses the greed that Achilles ahs to his advantage, although he fails, because Achilles refuses the offer.
3) on page: 261...
Agamemnon sends Odysseus (one of Achilles' friends) to talk to him and knock some sense into him, with more rational reasons to fight again. He uses logic to appeal to Achilles.
Read Book 9 - “The Embassy to Achilles” pp. 251-266 lines 1-522
You should answer these on your blog AND print them out and add them to your Iliad notes. If you don’t have a three-hole punch at home you can use the one at school. I would like to emphasize once again the importance of keeping your notes in one place – your binders. If you have notes scattered in your binder, your blog, and in a random notebook, they will be of no use to you when it comes time to prep for debate or write an essay. The same holds true if you don’t label your notes with the book number, page number, and line numbers etc…
1. Write a question. It can be an interpretive question that you have an opinion on or something about the text that you don't understand. You do not need to write the answer.
Question:
If you were Achilles What would be the reason for you to go and fight for your name would live on long after you die? Why would this be more important than haveing a full life with a family and happiness.
AND
2. What was your opinion of Agamemnon before reading this section? Does your opinion of him change after reading it? Why or why not? Aone paragraph reply is fine, minimum of 6 solid setneces, but you are encouraged to write more.
Before reading this section my opinion of Agamemnon was that he was this roothless king that cares so much about was prizes. Although in this section he says that he would rather five up his was prizes to have peace and have Achilles come back to fight for the Greeks. I think by doing this he is shown as weak and I don't think Achilles will, or for that matter should, agree, which he doesn't, because of how ignorantand expectant Agamemnon was of Achilles in book one. Another reason why I think Achilles will not take his gifts for an appology, which in fact Agamemnon is still not apologizing and saying he is the better man, mainly because he has already made up his mind about the war, and he deffinately isnt going to back down and change his mind for someone he hates, Agamemnon. Agamemnon is acting as if he is better than Achilles yet he is basically begging him to fight. Agamemnon doesnt realize he can't be forgiven that easily if even at all. He was clearly a coward because of his actions in book one, and quite frankly still is in book two.
AND
3. At various points in the text some characters attempt to persuade other characters to take a course of action. Examples of characters using persuasion include Nestor, Odysseus, and Ajax. Make a list of the persuasive strategy used by these characters, following this format:
Who is speaking?
What does that person say and to whom does he say it?
What persuasive strategy is it?
Why is it an example of that strategy?
Do this at least three times with different examples.
Remember the persuasive strategies include:
1. Appeal to reason (logic - does it “make sense” to do what the speaker says)
2. Appeal to emotion (does it try to make you happy, sad, angry etc… in an attempt to get you to act or think a certain way)
3. Appeal to ethics (right and wrong, moral principals - does it get you to think that a particular thought is morally right or wrong to get you to act or think a certain way)
1) on page: 252...
Diomedes tells his people, the Greeks, to stay on the beach of Troy, against Agamemnon's wishes. He appeals to the men's emotions and makes sure they know if they leave the will lose some of their pride and honor.
2) on page: 255...
Agamemnon tries to make Achilles join the war once again by appealing to his ethics and telling him it is what is right and what he should do to help his people. He also uses the greed that Achilles ahs to his advantage, although he fails, because Achilles refuses the offer.
3) on page: 261...
Agamemnon sends Odysseus (one of Achilles' friends) to talk to him and knock some sense into him, with more rational reasons to fight again. He uses logic to appeal to Achilles.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Iliad Reflection - Book One
DUE THR 2/22 Iliad Reflection - Book One
Answer the following question in your blog. Please cut and paste the question above your answer and put it in bold.
If you were an ancient Greek, which of the following statements would you agree with?
A) Achilles’ rage is justified and I support his decision not to fight, even if it means the Greeks might lose lots of men, or even the war itself.
Or
B) Agamemnon is the commander, as such he is in the right, and I support his decision to ask for Achilles’ war prize Briseis – even if it means that Achilles will sit out the war.
Your answer should be a good solid paragraph, have a topic sentence, and MUST use evidence from Homer.
If I were an ancient Greek i would agree with A:
I do believe that Achilles has a good reason to be upset. After all, he is the one who fought long and hard, he is the one who deserved a prize in the first place. Aggamemnon shouldn't abuse his power to get what he wants, thats definetly not a good quality for a leader. Also, not only does Aggamemnon kidnap Crysies, while all other men fight for their "prizes," but when the father askes for his daughter back, he refuses. Finally he does give her up, but only if he reiceves a prize of equal value to what he has lost. "Not so quickly, brave as you are, godlike Achilles - trying to cheat me. Oh no, you wont get past me, take me in that way! What do you want? To cling to your own prize while I sit calmly by - empty handed here? Is that why you order me to give her back? No -- if our generous argives will give me a prize, a match for my desires, equal to what I've lost, well and good." I realize that was a long quote, but that is probably my favorite part of the whole book. I find it rediculous that Aggamemnon thinks he can go around snatching prizes that people have earned. He feels he is being cheated, when he is the one cheating Achilles. Another point is, Aggamemnon should cater to Achilles, he practically wins wars for the Acheans. If it wasnt for Achilles, Aggamemnon would have never had a war prize in the first place, which is very true, as we all know.
Answer the following question in your blog. Please cut and paste the question above your answer and put it in bold.
If you were an ancient Greek, which of the following statements would you agree with?
A) Achilles’ rage is justified and I support his decision not to fight, even if it means the Greeks might lose lots of men, or even the war itself.
Or
B) Agamemnon is the commander, as such he is in the right, and I support his decision to ask for Achilles’ war prize Briseis – even if it means that Achilles will sit out the war.
Your answer should be a good solid paragraph, have a topic sentence, and MUST use evidence from Homer.
If I were an ancient Greek i would agree with A:
I do believe that Achilles has a good reason to be upset. After all, he is the one who fought long and hard, he is the one who deserved a prize in the first place. Aggamemnon shouldn't abuse his power to get what he wants, thats definetly not a good quality for a leader. Also, not only does Aggamemnon kidnap Crysies, while all other men fight for their "prizes," but when the father askes for his daughter back, he refuses. Finally he does give her up, but only if he reiceves a prize of equal value to what he has lost. "Not so quickly, brave as you are, godlike Achilles - trying to cheat me. Oh no, you wont get past me, take me in that way! What do you want? To cling to your own prize while I sit calmly by - empty handed here? Is that why you order me to give her back? No -- if our generous argives will give me a prize, a match for my desires, equal to what I've lost, well and good." I realize that was a long quote, but that is probably my favorite part of the whole book. I find it rediculous that Aggamemnon thinks he can go around snatching prizes that people have earned. He feels he is being cheated, when he is the one cheating Achilles. Another point is, Aggamemnon should cater to Achilles, he practically wins wars for the Acheans. If it wasnt for Achilles, Aggamemnon would have never had a war prize in the first place, which is very true, as we all know.
Disagreements and Fights
DUE THR 2/22 - Disagreements and Fights ...
In the spirit of exploring the universal qualities of Homer -----In your blog write about a time when you had a big disagreement with a friend - or other person - that led you or the other person to regret things that were said or done. Focus on the negative consequences of the disagreement and decisions that you or the other person made that might have made things needlessly worse. You can also write about something similar from literature or the movies, or even about other people that you know. Remember this is a public forum so be careful what you write. You can change names and fictionalize details.
Parents can have a lot to do with a relationship between their children and their friends. From how their parents accept you to how they interact with your own parents which can either make or hurt a friendship. I used to have this friend, and we would always be together and be at each other’s houses. Their mom and dad were very nice and seemed to approve of us hanging out together. One night I remember being at his house and eating dinner when they proceeded to say “thanks,” as in a prayer before they eat. Being polite I bowed my head, although I don’t have religious beliefs and therefore do not believe in God. I was then asked to say grace, but not being a religious person I went to say that I don’t believe, and right then, it seemed like I was not accepted anymore. There was a very long awkward silence, and then his parents tried to get me to believe. They told be about how Jesus could “be my savior” and a whole bunch of stuff, and quite frankly I didn’t want to discuss the topic. I felt pressured into doing something I don’t feel the need to participate in and wanted them to not judge me by my beliefs but by the person I am. Every time I went there they always were trying to convert me, and my friend never backed me up, or told his parents to let it go. Eventually I got so sick or trying to be polite and I must have said some stuff I shouldn’t had said, but I felt as if I was being violated and in a way harassed for not being like them. Although I lost a friend I think it was better that I did not let them pressure me into doing something I didn’t want to. I also think that by saying no to something like this I could in the future say no to other things, when being pressured to do them.
In the spirit of exploring the universal qualities of Homer -----In your blog write about a time when you had a big disagreement with a friend - or other person - that led you or the other person to regret things that were said or done. Focus on the negative consequences of the disagreement and decisions that you or the other person made that might have made things needlessly worse. You can also write about something similar from literature or the movies, or even about other people that you know. Remember this is a public forum so be careful what you write. You can change names and fictionalize details.
Parents can have a lot to do with a relationship between their children and their friends. From how their parents accept you to how they interact with your own parents which can either make or hurt a friendship. I used to have this friend, and we would always be together and be at each other’s houses. Their mom and dad were very nice and seemed to approve of us hanging out together. One night I remember being at his house and eating dinner when they proceeded to say “thanks,” as in a prayer before they eat. Being polite I bowed my head, although I don’t have religious beliefs and therefore do not believe in God. I was then asked to say grace, but not being a religious person I went to say that I don’t believe, and right then, it seemed like I was not accepted anymore. There was a very long awkward silence, and then his parents tried to get me to believe. They told be about how Jesus could “be my savior” and a whole bunch of stuff, and quite frankly I didn’t want to discuss the topic. I felt pressured into doing something I don’t feel the need to participate in and wanted them to not judge me by my beliefs but by the person I am. Every time I went there they always were trying to convert me, and my friend never backed me up, or told his parents to let it go. Eventually I got so sick or trying to be polite and I must have said some stuff I shouldn’t had said, but I felt as if I was being violated and in a way harassed for not being like them. Although I lost a friend I think it was better that I did not let them pressure me into doing something I didn’t want to. I also think that by saying no to something like this I could in the future say no to other things, when being pressured to do them.
Monday, February 12, 2007
My Rage - Cause
DUE TUE, 2/13 My Rage - Cause
We have been reading about Achilles’ rage; now let’s hear about yours (on your blog).
The title of this should be “My Rage – Cause.” This is simply for grading purposes. If you want another title, indicate that title in the body of your post, at the top.
Write about a time when you were angry. Focus on the cause of your anger. In other words, what made you angry? This should be a minimum of one full paragraph with an easily understood topic sentence. For example, “I was angry when …” The key to doing well on this type of writing is to provide explanations.
RAGE! It is a feeling everyone gets when their buttons have been pushed, to a point they cannot mentally take. It brings you to a place where you start to hate, or strongly dislike, everything and everyone around one. Depending on what triggered this anger you can feel hurt, betrayed, annoyed or simply outraged. One thing that pushed me over the edge is when someone says something to you, and you simply can't fight back. If they are "higher" than you, parents, teachers, authorites, etc. It is so frustrating to just have to sit back and take it, with no choice. You are left frustrated, raged, and powerless... Some of the worst feelings in the world.
We have been reading about Achilles’ rage; now let’s hear about yours (on your blog).
The title of this should be “My Rage – Cause.” This is simply for grading purposes. If you want another title, indicate that title in the body of your post, at the top.
Write about a time when you were angry. Focus on the cause of your anger. In other words, what made you angry? This should be a minimum of one full paragraph with an easily understood topic sentence. For example, “I was angry when …” The key to doing well on this type of writing is to provide explanations.
RAGE! It is a feeling everyone gets when their buttons have been pushed, to a point they cannot mentally take. It brings you to a place where you start to hate, or strongly dislike, everything and everyone around one. Depending on what triggered this anger you can feel hurt, betrayed, annoyed or simply outraged. One thing that pushed me over the edge is when someone says something to you, and you simply can't fight back. If they are "higher" than you, parents, teachers, authorites, etc. It is so frustrating to just have to sit back and take it, with no choice. You are left frustrated, raged, and powerless... Some of the worst feelings in the world.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Fahrenheit 451 pp. 154-165
DUE, WEDNESDAY 1/30 Fahrenheit 451 pp. 154-165
Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 154-165 (finish the book)
Question: What does Granger mean when he says, quoting his grandfather, “Shake the tree and knock the great sloth down on his ass”? Why is this quote important? How does it fit into the novel, what is Bradbury trying to say with this?
Response: What does Granger mean when he says, quoting his grandfather, “Shake the tree and knock the great sloth down on his ass”? Why is this quote important? How does it fit into the novel, what is Bradbury trying to say with this?I think that he means that the city and the majority of the population is the sloth. He thinks that the tree, or the comforts and ignorance of modern life, needs to be shaken out from under the sloth, or the people of the city. In other words, they have to realize that other peoples lives are not as easy as their own. To realize this, their comforts would need to be taken away from them, the city being demolished. Now they need to start over. They have to go without their homes or walls with "the family." They now know how the less fortunate parts of the world feel. The are experiencing it basically for the first time. I think that the author is saying that to know how the poor or the less fortunate feel you actually have to experience their type of pain, you just assume.
Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 154-165 (finish the book)
Question: What does Granger mean when he says, quoting his grandfather, “Shake the tree and knock the great sloth down on his ass”? Why is this quote important? How does it fit into the novel, what is Bradbury trying to say with this?
Response: What does Granger mean when he says, quoting his grandfather, “Shake the tree and knock the great sloth down on his ass”? Why is this quote important? How does it fit into the novel, what is Bradbury trying to say with this?I think that he means that the city and the majority of the population is the sloth. He thinks that the tree, or the comforts and ignorance of modern life, needs to be shaken out from under the sloth, or the people of the city. In other words, they have to realize that other peoples lives are not as easy as their own. To realize this, their comforts would need to be taken away from them, the city being demolished. Now they need to start over. They have to go without their homes or walls with "the family." They now know how the less fortunate parts of the world feel. The are experiencing it basically for the first time. I think that the author is saying that to know how the poor or the less fortunate feel you actually have to experience their type of pain, you just assume.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Fahrenheit 451 pp. 138-154
DUE TUESDAY, 1/29 Fahrenheit 451 pp. 138-154
Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 138-154
1. Write one or more questions that you have.
No questions.
2. How has Montag changed from the beginning of the novel to this part?
In the beginning of the story, Montag was a complicated man. He didn't enjoy living with his wife, and he always seemed depressed. Life seemed like it was boring to Montag. When he met Clarisse, he started to open up as a person. Throughout the story, he begins to realize that the society he is living in is like a little bubble. When the two ladies come over to his house and talk politics to him, he gets frustrated. One of the ladies state that they hate poetry, and Montag asks, "Have you actually even read poetry?" The women just leave, crying. Even farther in the story, Montag is caught with books. He does many things that he, in the begininning of the book, would never do. For example, he kills the hound (who he was scared of) and Beatty, one of his fellow fire fighters. Montag has faced a change that is like day and night . At the end of the book, he ends with a happy life on the train tracks, and the novel leaves you thinking that know, Monatg can begin a actual society NOT run by the crazy people who ban books, simply because it gives other people ideas.
Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 138-154
1. Write one or more questions that you have.
No questions.
2. How has Montag changed from the beginning of the novel to this part?
In the beginning of the story, Montag was a complicated man. He didn't enjoy living with his wife, and he always seemed depressed. Life seemed like it was boring to Montag. When he met Clarisse, he started to open up as a person. Throughout the story, he begins to realize that the society he is living in is like a little bubble. When the two ladies come over to his house and talk politics to him, he gets frustrated. One of the ladies state that they hate poetry, and Montag asks, "Have you actually even read poetry?" The women just leave, crying. Even farther in the story, Montag is caught with books. He does many things that he, in the begininning of the book, would never do. For example, he kills the hound (who he was scared of) and Beatty, one of his fellow fire fighters. Montag has faced a change that is like day and night . At the end of the book, he ends with a happy life on the train tracks, and the novel leaves you thinking that know, Monatg can begin a actual society NOT run by the crazy people who ban books, simply because it gives other people ideas.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Fahrenheit 451 pp. 126-137
DUE Monday 1/29 Fahrenheit 451 pp. 126-137
Read pp. 126-137
Find a line from the story or a paragraph that you like and explain why you like it.ORExplain what you find interesting or exciting in this part of the book.
"He could feel the Hound, like autumn, come cold and dry and swift, like a wind that didn't stir grass, that didn't jar windows or disturb leaf shadows on the white sidewalks as it passed."(page 137)
I liked this because the sentence seemed so... beautiful and it deeply discribed how he could feel the hound. I dont know, i just really like it. When i first read the sentence i read it again, because it was so well written. I like how the author described the hound as autumn coming. I personally like this season and so i thought that it was different to describe something terrible by it. Also, this paints a picture in my mind. The language used in this sentence is very powerful and descriptive so it makes it easy to refer the metaphor to the real life action.
Read pp. 126-137
Find a line from the story or a paragraph that you like and explain why you like it.ORExplain what you find interesting or exciting in this part of the book.
"He could feel the Hound, like autumn, come cold and dry and swift, like a wind that didn't stir grass, that didn't jar windows or disturb leaf shadows on the white sidewalks as it passed."(page 137)
I liked this because the sentence seemed so... beautiful and it deeply discribed how he could feel the hound. I dont know, i just really like it. When i first read the sentence i read it again, because it was so well written. I like how the author described the hound as autumn coming. I personally like this season and so i thought that it was different to describe something terrible by it. Also, this paints a picture in my mind. The language used in this sentence is very powerful and descriptive so it makes it easy to refer the metaphor to the real life action.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Fahrenheit 451 pp. 110-125
DUE FRIDAY, 1/26 Fahrenheit 451 pp. 110-125
DUE FRIDAY, 1/26 Fahrenheit 451 pp. 110-125
1. Summarize what happens in one or two sentences.
AND
2. On your blog, copy down one sentence from this reading selection that strikes you as particularly descriptive. Which of the 5 senses does it appeal to? What verbs, adjectives, or figurative language are used and why are they effective in describing a certain action, person, or thing?
This section mainly involved the discovery that Mildred was indeed behind the report on Montag and the burning of his house. During the burning, Montag murders captain Beatty, “kills” the hound and threatens other members of the firehouse. An interesting sentence from this part was the line, “There was a crash like the falling parts of a dream fashioned out of warped glass, mirrors and crystal prisms.” It makes you feel like you can almost hear the tinkling of broken glass hitting the floor. It also creates this image of a broken mirror where everything looks strange, though moments before, it had seemed so familiar, I know you know the feeling. And last, I like it because of the hopelessness that it carries. I can feel the despair as everything that he knew comes crashing down at his feet, I can feel his dreams, because the description is so well done.
DUE FRIDAY, 1/26 Fahrenheit 451 pp. 110-125
1. Summarize what happens in one or two sentences.
AND
2. On your blog, copy down one sentence from this reading selection that strikes you as particularly descriptive. Which of the 5 senses does it appeal to? What verbs, adjectives, or figurative language are used and why are they effective in describing a certain action, person, or thing?
This section mainly involved the discovery that Mildred was indeed behind the report on Montag and the burning of his house. During the burning, Montag murders captain Beatty, “kills” the hound and threatens other members of the firehouse. An interesting sentence from this part was the line, “There was a crash like the falling parts of a dream fashioned out of warped glass, mirrors and crystal prisms.” It makes you feel like you can almost hear the tinkling of broken glass hitting the floor. It also creates this image of a broken mirror where everything looks strange, though moments before, it had seemed so familiar, I know you know the feeling. And last, I like it because of the hopelessness that it carries. I can feel the despair as everything that he knew comes crashing down at his feet, I can feel his dreams, because the description is so well done.
Puffs of Dust
The Twin Towers Attack
Claim:
The author in this chapter proves that the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy by quoting three men. This proves that there were explosive devices hidden inside the buildings. Also, a professor I believe made a hypothesis that there wasn’t enough support in the bottom to keep the building up.
Fact:
The fact in this chapter is that if you watch the video of the plane crashing into the building, the explosions go up wards, making a chain reaction that goes downwards causing the building t collapse. It was also said that there were explosive devices in the bottom of the building as well.
Claim:
The author in this chapter proves that the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy by quoting three men. This proves that there were explosive devices hidden inside the buildings. Also, a professor I believe made a hypothesis that there wasn’t enough support in the bottom to keep the building up.
Fact:
The fact in this chapter is that if you watch the video of the plane crashing into the building, the explosions go up wards, making a chain reaction that goes downwards causing the building t collapse. It was also said that there were explosive devices in the bottom of the building as well.
Fahrenheit 481 pp. 81-91
Monday, January 22, 2007
DUE Wednesday 1/24 Fahrenheit 481 pp. 81-91
Read pp. 81-91
Do the following three things --- this has one more step than last time.
1. Write a question. What are you confused about?
Currently I have nothing I am confused about, I am really starting to enjoy the book and it is giving me new outlooks on different societies.
Faber jokingly proposes a plan of action and then starts to discuss it seriously with Montag. What is the plan of action? More importantly, why does he say it won’t work? Analyze his answer. Why won't it work?
Faber's plan was to plant books in each one of the fireman's houses, so they would get caught with books and have their own houses burned for a change. Faber said that "the fireman's structure itself would have to burn."
One of the reasons Faber says the plan will not work is that it is hard to trust people. He said that other people would be needed to help, but who can he trust? For all he knows, the people that he gets to help may just turn him and Montag into the police, and that would be the end of them."But that will just nibble the edges. The whole cultures shot through. The skeleton needs melting and reshaping." Faber is saying that too much damage has already been done. Lighting the fireman's houses would only do a little, they needed to totally reshape society. He said that "the public it self had stop reading books on its own." To really change things, he had to change the peoples minds. The trouble is that they are having fun with their parlor t.v.'s. What will make them want to give that up for reading something. If the public is content the way they are, why would they want to change.
DUE Wednesday 1/24 Fahrenheit 481 pp. 81-91
Read pp. 81-91
Do the following three things --- this has one more step than last time.
1. Write a question. What are you confused about?
Currently I have nothing I am confused about, I am really starting to enjoy the book and it is giving me new outlooks on different societies.
Faber jokingly proposes a plan of action and then starts to discuss it seriously with Montag. What is the plan of action? More importantly, why does he say it won’t work? Analyze his answer. Why won't it work?
Faber's plan was to plant books in each one of the fireman's houses, so they would get caught with books and have their own houses burned for a change. Faber said that "the fireman's structure itself would have to burn."
One of the reasons Faber says the plan will not work is that it is hard to trust people. He said that other people would be needed to help, but who can he trust? For all he knows, the people that he gets to help may just turn him and Montag into the police, and that would be the end of them."But that will just nibble the edges. The whole cultures shot through. The skeleton needs melting and reshaping." Faber is saying that too much damage has already been done. Lighting the fireman's houses would only do a little, they needed to totally reshape society. He said that "the public it self had stop reading books on its own." To really change things, he had to change the peoples minds. The trouble is that they are having fun with their parlor t.v.'s. What will make them want to give that up for reading something. If the public is content the way they are, why would they want to change.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Fahrenheit 451 pages 91 - 110
DUE THURSDAY 1/25 Fahrenheit 451pp. 91 - 110
Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 91-110
Everyone needs to:
Give a very short (1-3 sentence) summary of the two main scenes in this section. The first scence was at home in the living room and the second scene was in the fire house with Beatty.
Scene 1:
In the first big scene Montag overhears his wife ,Mildred, and her friends talk about their husbands. More speciafically how thier husbands were fighting in the war, and how they didnt care because they knew they were going to be okay. When Montag hears this he gets very angry and starts to rage. He reads the women a poem, and one of Mildreds friend begins to cry. When Mildred sees the lady's reaction shes says that it was just a joke and that shes throwing a party for Montags 'wild' behavier. Even after saying this the women want to leave. Maybe this was all in Montags plan, because before the women leave, because when they do he yells, "Go home and think of your first husband divorced and your second husband killed in a jet and your third husband blowing his brains out, go home and think of the dozen abortions you’ve had, go home and think of that and your damn Caesarian sections too, and your children who hate your guts! Go home and think how it all happened and what did you ever do to stop it?”
Scene 2:
In the second scene Beatty is telling Montag about a “dream” he had. In the dream Montag and Beatty where arguing, saying quotes from different books. What Beatty was trying to do was confuse Montag, making sure he would be on his side with the rest of the firemen. Luckily Faber was there to guide Montag through it. The alarm bell rang and they all went out to burn a house. They pull up at the house for Montag to only realize it is his house that they are burning.
Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 91-110
Everyone needs to:
Give a very short (1-3 sentence) summary of the two main scenes in this section. The first scence was at home in the living room and the second scene was in the fire house with Beatty.
Scene 1:
In the first big scene Montag overhears his wife ,Mildred, and her friends talk about their husbands. More speciafically how thier husbands were fighting in the war, and how they didnt care because they knew they were going to be okay. When Montag hears this he gets very angry and starts to rage. He reads the women a poem, and one of Mildreds friend begins to cry. When Mildred sees the lady's reaction shes says that it was just a joke and that shes throwing a party for Montags 'wild' behavier. Even after saying this the women want to leave. Maybe this was all in Montags plan, because before the women leave, because when they do he yells, "Go home and think of your first husband divorced and your second husband killed in a jet and your third husband blowing his brains out, go home and think of the dozen abortions you’ve had, go home and think of that and your damn Caesarian sections too, and your children who hate your guts! Go home and think how it all happened and what did you ever do to stop it?”
Scene 2:
In the second scene Beatty is telling Montag about a “dream” he had. In the dream Montag and Beatty where arguing, saying quotes from different books. What Beatty was trying to do was confuse Montag, making sure he would be on his side with the rest of the firemen. Luckily Faber was there to guide Montag through it. The alarm bell rang and they all went out to burn a house. They pull up at the house for Montag to only realize it is his house that they are burning.
Debunking 9/11 Myths Chapter Two
DUE THUR 1/25: Debunking 9/11 Myths
Chapter Two Chapter 2: The World Trade Center
"Fire and Debris Damage”
Claim:
Conspiracy theorists believe that the WTC 7 collapsed from a controlled demolition compared to a result of the twin tower fir/attack.
Fact:
NIST says that the WTC 7 already had a big deal of damage done to the exterior of the building. They also say that although most of the pictures taken of the building were unclear, there was a very large (10 stories) scooped out from the twin tower debris. All this added up along with the fire that makes sense that the tower fell to the ground.
Analysis:
I think in this section that the claim makes more sense because it seems really unbelievable that the WTC 7, that was not even attacked on September 11th, fell to the ground like a controlled demolition by some debris damage alone.
Chapter Two Chapter 2: The World Trade Center
"Fire and Debris Damage”
Claim:
Conspiracy theorists believe that the WTC 7 collapsed from a controlled demolition compared to a result of the twin tower fir/attack.
Fact:
NIST says that the WTC 7 already had a big deal of damage done to the exterior of the building. They also say that although most of the pictures taken of the building were unclear, there was a very large (10 stories) scooped out from the twin tower debris. All this added up along with the fire that makes sense that the tower fell to the ground.
Analysis:
I think in this section that the claim makes more sense because it seems really unbelievable that the WTC 7, that was not even attacked on September 11th, fell to the ground like a controlled demolition by some debris damage alone.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
confusion
when Montag was trying to remember the phrase "Deham's Dentifrice" but then kept thinking/saying "consider the liles of the field" and "SHUT UP. SHUP UP!"
i was a bit confused.
help?
i was a bit confused.
help?
Debunking Assignment
DUE WED 1/24 Debunking Assignment
Read the section from Debunking 9/11 Myths that you were assigned in class.
Flight 175's Windows.
Claim:
One eye witness says that the plane that crashed into the south tower did not look like a commercial plane, in which it had no windows. It looks as if it was a military cargo plane, which supports the most popular conspiracy theory.
Fact:
When later questioned more about the plane, the eye witness told officials that although he saw a plane flying over head. He did not actually see the plan strike the south tower, and only heard the explosion.
Analysis:
I think that although the eye witness saw a plane that looked like a military cargo plane without windows, he did only see it from the bottom of it and could have not seen the side on the plane, which might have had windows. I also think since he did not see the plane actually crash into the towers is another reason the claim seem false. Although they have a good point, I don’t think they can base any facts off of this evidence.
Read the section from Debunking 9/11 Myths that you were assigned in class.
Flight 175's Windows.
Claim:
One eye witness says that the plane that crashed into the south tower did not look like a commercial plane, in which it had no windows. It looks as if it was a military cargo plane, which supports the most popular conspiracy theory.
Fact:
When later questioned more about the plane, the eye witness told officials that although he saw a plane flying over head. He did not actually see the plan strike the south tower, and only heard the explosion.
Analysis:
I think that although the eye witness saw a plane that looked like a military cargo plane without windows, he did only see it from the bottom of it and could have not seen the side on the plane, which might have had windows. I also think since he did not see the plane actually crash into the towers is another reason the claim seem false. Although they have a good point, I don’t think they can base any facts off of this evidence.
descriptive writing II
DUE WED. 1/24 Descriptive Paragraph
This is classwork, but I will accept it on Wed. 1/24.
Write a descriptive paragraph about something you like or look forward to.
I stand in a slightly dark room along with hundreds of other people all there, here, to listen to something that we like, and that we can relate to. Watching the inspiring artists sing about what they have experienced and how they feel about life. Jumping and dancing like there is no care in the world, just as a leaf sways through the air, not trying to be anything, just being what it is, what I am. As the instruments get louder and you can feel the beat in you chest, like the walking of a great giant through a wooden floored hall, you can feel the excitement in the room. You can’t even hear yourself scream the lyrics as you can’t really pay attention to your actions as the music takes over your body. Sharp sounds and soothing remedies all add up to thee overpowering pulse going through your veins that brings warmth until the end of the cold winter night.
This is classwork, but I will accept it on Wed. 1/24.
Write a descriptive paragraph about something you like or look forward to.
I stand in a slightly dark room along with hundreds of other people all there, here, to listen to something that we like, and that we can relate to. Watching the inspiring artists sing about what they have experienced and how they feel about life. Jumping and dancing like there is no care in the world, just as a leaf sways through the air, not trying to be anything, just being what it is, what I am. As the instruments get louder and you can feel the beat in you chest, like the walking of a great giant through a wooden floored hall, you can feel the excitement in the room. You can’t even hear yourself scream the lyrics as you can’t really pay attention to your actions as the music takes over your body. Sharp sounds and soothing remedies all add up to thee overpowering pulse going through your veins that brings warmth until the end of the cold winter night.
Monday, January 22, 2007
descriptive writing
Descriptive writing.
I walk through the moist grass, like the dew on small slender windows as a glowing ball of fire begins to rise. I watch the ground, as if I were a hound on the hunt for a lonesome deer in the woods far away from everything and just going on instinct. Afraid to step too hard and squish the living creatures under my feet, as they would be gone in an instant, before they would even be able to take one last breath or make the slightest move, they’d be long gone from the world. Slowly moving towards the small grains of rock that are mixing in with the former homes of living organisms I heard the pulse of the ocean and the pressure exerted on the land each time the waves hit the earth. Each step I take I start to tremble at what I am about to enter, the world of non-human living things. It’s not my place to invade on their home, and I hope that they could let me invade just for a bit. Allow me to escape this other world so close to where we live, with the experience of cool rushes of liquid and the freshness of the sea.
I walk through the moist grass, like the dew on small slender windows as a glowing ball of fire begins to rise. I watch the ground, as if I were a hound on the hunt for a lonesome deer in the woods far away from everything and just going on instinct. Afraid to step too hard and squish the living creatures under my feet, as they would be gone in an instant, before they would even be able to take one last breath or make the slightest move, they’d be long gone from the world. Slowly moving towards the small grains of rock that are mixing in with the former homes of living organisms I heard the pulse of the ocean and the pressure exerted on the land each time the waves hit the earth. Each step I take I start to tremble at what I am about to enter, the world of non-human living things. It’s not my place to invade on their home, and I hope that they could let me invade just for a bit. Allow me to escape this other world so close to where we live, with the experience of cool rushes of liquid and the freshness of the sea.
Fahrenheit 451 pp. 71-80
DUE Tuesday 1/23 - Fahrenheit 451 pp. 71-80 Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 71-81.
Write a question about the reading.
What are you confused about?
The thing that seems weird to me is that Montag has so many books hidden up in his attic, which apparently Beatty has known about all this time. It's a bit confusing to me that they would even let Montag explore these books... I guess they think that he won't "get" the point of the books even if he tried, but i don't think that the government (or whoever) realizes he is going to a perfessor for help, and I think that he might find out why too much then they intended him to.
Q: What does Montag mean when he says that books "point, one way or another, to Clarisse?"
I think that Montag means that Clarisse is a “rebel” to what society wants her to believe. Now that Clarisse has “vanished” Montag begins to think about why she has been sent away. Why is it such a bad thing to have opinions or to have an imagination and do things everyone else doesn’t? The reason is that the government doesn’t want them to cause “trouble.” This meaning that if there isn’t anything to argue about in the first place, everyone would be oblivious to it and not know how they even feel about it. (that is until someone figures out the truth, but then again the government deals with this, and basically ends whatever this person is. They no longer exist and the general public have learned that death is not that big of a deal and that if someone makes a mistake, the must pay for it. No matter what the consequence.)
Write a question about the reading.
What are you confused about?
The thing that seems weird to me is that Montag has so many books hidden up in his attic, which apparently Beatty has known about all this time. It's a bit confusing to me that they would even let Montag explore these books... I guess they think that he won't "get" the point of the books even if he tried, but i don't think that the government (or whoever) realizes he is going to a perfessor for help, and I think that he might find out why too much then they intended him to.
Q: What does Montag mean when he says that books "point, one way or another, to Clarisse?"
I think that Montag means that Clarisse is a “rebel” to what society wants her to believe. Now that Clarisse has “vanished” Montag begins to think about why she has been sent away. Why is it such a bad thing to have opinions or to have an imagination and do things everyone else doesn’t? The reason is that the government doesn’t want them to cause “trouble.” This meaning that if there isn’t anything to argue about in the first place, everyone would be oblivious to it and not know how they even feel about it. (that is until someone figures out the truth, but then again the government deals with this, and basically ends whatever this person is. They no longer exist and the general public have learned that death is not that big of a deal and that if someone makes a mistake, the must pay for it. No matter what the consequence.)
Fahrenheit 451 pages 40-68
Answer one of these two questions from the perspective of Captain Beatty.
Give the type of answer you think he would give – use quotes and other details from the book in your answer.
Is it better to be ignorant and happy OR is it better to be aware, educated and disturbed at the world?
Be sure to include the problem with minority opinions, individual thought, and the historical conditions that made this possible.
Use quotations and other evidence from the text in your response.
From the perspective of Captain Beatty I think he would say that it is better to be ignorant(although I think he would use another way of saying it like unaware, which makes it sound not as bad), and happy because he believes that if people just don’t know the facts, they would be better off. Beatty tries to hide the truth anyways by saying it was always the same, and if they just know what they have told them, they won’t have any problems. Montag starts to question this “way of life” after the night when he burnt the old lady and her books. He felt that if she was willing to die for them that there must be something very important in those so called “banned objects full of nonsense and false hope” if they were worth all that she went through for them. Beatty went to Montag’s house as if he knew he was going to call in sick, and once there, he reassured him that the history of the firefighters has always been to burn books and not that they put out fires. He laughed at the idea and went on to claim that reading books is just a way for the society to get out of hand. He thinks that people would become sad and it would make the world more complex then it really is. Personally, I think that people are eventually going to find out the truth and by making up lies, it is just going to cause more conflict and it would have if they were allowed to think for themselves in the first place.
Give the type of answer you think he would give – use quotes and other details from the book in your answer.
Is it better to be ignorant and happy OR is it better to be aware, educated and disturbed at the world?
Be sure to include the problem with minority opinions, individual thought, and the historical conditions that made this possible.
Use quotations and other evidence from the text in your response.
From the perspective of Captain Beatty I think he would say that it is better to be ignorant(although I think he would use another way of saying it like unaware, which makes it sound not as bad), and happy because he believes that if people just don’t know the facts, they would be better off. Beatty tries to hide the truth anyways by saying it was always the same, and if they just know what they have told them, they won’t have any problems. Montag starts to question this “way of life” after the night when he burnt the old lady and her books. He felt that if she was willing to die for them that there must be something very important in those so called “banned objects full of nonsense and false hope” if they were worth all that she went through for them. Beatty went to Montag’s house as if he knew he was going to call in sick, and once there, he reassured him that the history of the firefighters has always been to burn books and not that they put out fires. He laughed at the idea and went on to claim that reading books is just a way for the society to get out of hand. He thinks that people would become sad and it would make the world more complex then it really is. Personally, I think that people are eventually going to find out the truth and by making up lies, it is just going to cause more conflict and it would have if they were allowed to think for themselves in the first place.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Fahrenheit 451 pages 21-40
Read Fahrenheit 451 pp. 21- 40
(to the section break at the top of p. 40)
What do you find confusing?
What is something you don’t understand?
In the pages 21-40 I feel that I am not really confused about anything unparticular. Although, compared to the earlier reading, this section has more metaphors and is a little harder to understand what or how Bradbury is trying to portray in his writing. When I don't understand something I simply go back and read it again. The second time around I usually get it then move on.
1) Montag compares Mildred (his wife) to Clarisse and says that Clarisse seems older. In what way does Clarisse act more mature and WHY do you think she is more mature? Why does Bradbury (the author) make the contrast between the two?
I think that the reason Montag compares Mildred to Clarisse and says that Clarisse, a seventeen year old, seems older than his wife, a 30 year old, is simply because he sees how their human nature differs. For example, Clarisse talks about things like tasting the rain, what things used to be like, and about trying new things. I think that Montag is attracted to this part of her that he has probably never experienced before. His wife seems to be the kind of person who is oblivious to what is really going on around her. Although that is what most of the people in this society must think. It seems that Montag realizes that Clarisse has a beautiful personality as well as a wonderful, imaginative mind. She doesn’t just accept what is put in front of her and she wants to determine the truth, not just what she is expected to know and believe. This would make her seem “older” than Mildred because of the fact that Mildred doesn’t really think for herself. She is basically brainwashed and does unimportant activities. For example, she is amused with the smallest things, like interactive television scripts, which I’m sure Clarisse wouldn’t be too fond of.
(to the section break at the top of p. 40)
What do you find confusing?
What is something you don’t understand?
In the pages 21-40 I feel that I am not really confused about anything unparticular. Although, compared to the earlier reading, this section has more metaphors and is a little harder to understand what or how Bradbury is trying to portray in his writing. When I don't understand something I simply go back and read it again. The second time around I usually get it then move on.
1) Montag compares Mildred (his wife) to Clarisse and says that Clarisse seems older. In what way does Clarisse act more mature and WHY do you think she is more mature? Why does Bradbury (the author) make the contrast between the two?
I think that the reason Montag compares Mildred to Clarisse and says that Clarisse, a seventeen year old, seems older than his wife, a 30 year old, is simply because he sees how their human nature differs. For example, Clarisse talks about things like tasting the rain, what things used to be like, and about trying new things. I think that Montag is attracted to this part of her that he has probably never experienced before. His wife seems to be the kind of person who is oblivious to what is really going on around her. Although that is what most of the people in this society must think. It seems that Montag realizes that Clarisse has a beautiful personality as well as a wonderful, imaginative mind. She doesn’t just accept what is put in front of her and she wants to determine the truth, not just what she is expected to know and believe. This would make her seem “older” than Mildred because of the fact that Mildred doesn’t really think for herself. She is basically brainwashed and does unimportant activities. For example, she is amused with the smallest things, like interactive television scripts, which I’m sure Clarisse wouldn’t be too fond of.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Fahrenheit 451 pages. 3-21
Read pages 3-21 ON YOUR BLOG
Create a blog entry with the title: Fahrenheit 451 pp. 3-21
Do the following:
1) Ask a question that you have about what's going on in the novel.
What do you find confusing?
The thing that i found confusing was the relationship between Montag and his wife, Mildred. She seemed very upset because of the insedint with the pills. But then later on she seemed to have improved her attitude and seemed even, maybe happy?
Answer the following question:
1) Even before Montag and his wife Mildred talk to one another we know that they are alienated (distant) from one another.
How does the author convey this?
Montag looks/sees his neighbor, Clarisse, as if he wasn't married. The way she is discribed makes her seem as if she could seduce Montag, and maybe his interest in other women is a sign of a distant relationship.
Create a blog entry with the title: Fahrenheit 451 pp. 3-21
Do the following:
1) Ask a question that you have about what's going on in the novel.
What do you find confusing?
The thing that i found confusing was the relationship between Montag and his wife, Mildred. She seemed very upset because of the insedint with the pills. But then later on she seemed to have improved her attitude and seemed even, maybe happy?
Answer the following question:
1) Even before Montag and his wife Mildred talk to one another we know that they are alienated (distant) from one another.
How does the author convey this?
Montag looks/sees his neighbor, Clarisse, as if he wasn't married. The way she is discribed makes her seem as if she could seduce Montag, and maybe his interest in other women is a sign of a distant relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
