on privilege

I do not really see myself privileged by my class, race or gender. The only real privileges (i can think of right now) that those groups usually obtain are scholarships or financial aid but i don't receive any sort of help; my dad pays for all of it. Being Mexican in the united states has often been hard for me. There are so many obstacles to everyday things. After being here for 13 years and becoming assimilated, i am still not a US citizen which does not allow me to do basic things most take for granted. I cant get any financial aid, i cant vote, i cant get a driver's license, i cant get life insurance, i cant travel outside the country, i cant even get a regular fucking job. So i can say i am pretty disadvantaged at times. (it has not been a choice not to be a citizen btw, the whole things is complicated)
-anayaxy

the whitegirl effect

First off, yes. I get pretty much every advantage that McIntosh talks about, and many more. For example, my grandparents are loaded, and I know I can depend on that. I doubt they would have been so successful at amassing their small fortunes if they had not been white, since they got most of it during the '50s and '60s. Knowing that I have people who can take care of me financially if things get rough is very comforting.

Also, when I can't dance, no one is surprised. I am the master of the whitegirl dance!

Disadvantages... really, I don't have anything to complain about. The biggest thing, probably, was seeing my peers from high school get all sorts of money thrown at them through financial aid or scholarships because they're minorities. I mean, I'm only paying eight grand a year, but one of my very best friends from high school is going to a private university where his entire bill is footed by the school and government. Does he need it? Hell no - his family got him a brand new Benz when he started school, and when he crashed it, they let him choose something else! And it seems like his family wouldn't be able to get away with getting totally free college on top of that if they were white, instead of Saudi.

Hunter

McIntosh

I have never really seen myself as privileged due to the fact I am WHITE, but I have known I am at an advantage because I am, to today's numbers, loaded. The fact my dad is rich allows me and my family to live in a nicer area. Race has never been an issue where I live, either. Education proved to be invaluable and those who were not educated were those people who had emigrated here from other countries and were forced to take lower wage, low skill jobs. I do know, however, that I am constantly the butt of jokes due to my inability to dance which is caused (according to every non-white person) by my being white. I have been called a cracker and whitey and a number of other names, but I would never think of calling another person of different heritage a name, not only because it is mean but because I run the risk of being called 'racist.'

Ali Nicolette

Privileges

In McIntosh article I thought the invisible system that she presented was fairly correct.The only thing that I was thinking was "what if your white and poor and considered to be a low status, would this invisible system still apply?". If apply some of the privileges from the article to fit my life experiences then maybe #9 ,the part about someone being able to cut your hair.I see how they rush to attend me while other people or treated differently. Overall I think that none of these special privileges do not apply to me. Maybe the fact that I am Mexican makes me see that some of these invisible systems do exist because I have seen this myself in Oregon where everyone is basically white.

violence

Could violence be good or bad in order to fix a problem? It depends on how you look at a situation. I believe that violence could be justified in different scenario's and example could be when Gandhi was beaten up in the train because he did not get up from his seat.Instead he sat there while he was beaten or as they said in class he acted like a woman..lol...whitout defending himself.He should of. In that situation I would have done the opposite which would be to fuck that guy up.I would not sit there,but hey it worked for Gandhi.I think it is wrong to use violence when someone is trying to make you do something that you do not want to do..in Gandhi's case the guy hitting Gandhi to force him off the seat...force is wrong.In my opinion I would use violence only in necessary means and people know this. That is why I have never been stepped up to and I have not been violent toward others becuase of this.

"What good is a man anyways?"

Well, honestly this question is really hard to answer. "What good is a man anyways?" I would say a man is just as good to have around as a women figure would be for the following reasons: to pass the time with, be happy, to fulfill those pleasures in life, to laugh with, bring your spirits up, a little bit like a social, kinda best friend, but much more deeper into emotional and expression of passionate feelings. humm.....


Claudia De Anda

Response to McIntosh

I'm Mexican by birth, and I know I am because both my parents are from Mexico, but i don't look all that Mexican. Because i'm extremely light skinned, too light skinned to be just Mexican, I do get a few priviledges that McIntosh mentions such as #9, 24, and of course 25, and that's about it. I don't think anyone can move into a new neighborhood and be sure that their neighbors will like them (like Patrick said). Recently i went to Tijuana with my Mom and sisters, and my Mom brought everyone's passport BUT mine. I had no identification. When we got to the crossing area...whatever it's called, the guy questioned me. And because I hardly have an accent in English, and i think because I look somewhat Americanized, he let me off easier.
Had it been someone else of a darker skin tone they might have been harder on them.
I can't really remember anyway i have been disadvantaged. Maybe one will come to my mind when I'm in class.

Claudia De Anda

Violence, Psychology, and Privilege

Playing catch-up here...

On violence: I feel that violence is another one of those terms that needs to be adequately defined before you can answer a question like this. There are all kinds of violence, and we need to understand what form of violence we are addressing. There is interpersonal violence (physical & emotional), self-directed violence (self-harming, eating disorders, etc.), natural violence (storms, etc.), creative violence... The act of creation can be violent (art, music, sex, etc.). Dictionary.com defines violence as "swift and intense force" (among other definitions). The answer to the question depends on your definition of violence. Some violence (e.g. creative violence) is necessary; violence can provide an impetus for change. Nature can be incredibly violent, but sometimes this violence is necessary for the beginning of new life (e.g. forest fires, the creation of new islands following volcanic eruptions, etc.).
I think that most people usually think of violence in terms of interpersonal violence (or war). I feel that while certain forms of interpersonal violence can be useful, the lasting effects of its utilization often undermine the success gained by implementing it. In this, I agree with Gandhi that you should try non-violence first, but using violence is better than ignoring the problem.

On psychology: Psychology is the science of human behavior. It is the process by which we come to understand social, emotional, developmental, behavioral, and cognitive phenomena. In popular culture, psychology is often portrayed as a pseudo-science, ruled by psychoanalysts who believe that the root of all your problems is your desire to have sex with your mother. Therapists are but a limited representation of what psychology is. While therapy has immense potential to help people, in some forms it is barely more scientific than a visit with a witch-doctor. However, therapy IS NOT psychology. Therapy is the application of some psychological theories and research for the purpose of helping people. Whether or not they are actually helped depends on which research you are reading. HOWEVER, psychology is much more than just therapy. Psychology is used everywhere in life. Psychological research is crucial in shaping educational and social policy reform. The study of psychopathology gives us insight into the nature of mental illness, which is an important step in de-stigmatizing psychiatric/emotional/behavioral problems. Psychology helps us understand decision-making and motivation, and can give us the tools to be better problem-solvers. Psychology is a lot of things, and I plan to spend the rest of my life engaged in the study of it. I could go on for way too long about this, so I'll stop here.

On Privilege: I just did this whole thing in my Critical Pedagogy class...
I consider myself to be incredibly privileged. I am "white" (racially--color-wise I am brown-cream-pink-yellow), my family has been middle-class for generations, I have lived for the majority of my life in the U.S., and I am educated. When I was living in Indonesia, however, I became incredibly aware of how much we take for granted here in the States. I mention this in most of my classes, but in Indonesia there is an advertising campaign whose catchphrase is "White is Beautiful," the purpose of which is to sell skin-bleaching products. I was a minority there--I could go weeks without seeing another Westerner, but I was constantly being praised for the paleness of my skin. I feel that this is an example of cultural imperalism and hegemony at their most insidious.
My privileges: The majority of the list compiled by McIntosh as well as others based on my SES, education-level, and nationality. My disadvantages: Being female (but not always--it can also be an advantage), being single (goes against hegemony in our culture that says a woman's worth is defined by her ability to "catch" a man), being young (a disadvantage in terms of financial judgments), current low-income due to being a college student (as separated from SES, which relates more to class; family income is also not currently high however due to stupid exchange rate between dollar and euro).
A student in an earlier post (Patrick) raised the notion of "intersectionality," which I believe is incredibly important. Each person's experience of the world is often determined by the intersection of the culturally-significant boxes they fit into. A chicana lesbian is going to have a very different experience of privilege than a caucasian, heterosexual male. Factor in SES (socioeconomic status), religion, educational level--and you have two people inhabiting the same space and time that are in virtually different worlds. Race isn't the only conversation that we need to have.
~Tara

tighty white-ee's

In a sense most of McIntosh's points apply to me. Why? Because though I may only be half white, most people just pass me off for white anyway (I'm half Vietnamese). While I was reading the article, I couldn't help but wonder if the concept was concieved by a teetering-on-idle mind, one that had a little too much time to draw these sorts of connections and concieve these privileges that ONLY white people enjoy. My global politics class has been discussing the subject of intersectionality and with what timing! Intersectionality refers to the idea that though peoples will be organized into generalized groups, in this case race, there are a multitude of categories that everyone falls into. Though someone may be white, they may fall under the poverty line, they may have mental/physical issues that debilitate them, they may even be criminals. McIntosh seems to disregard this notion that not everyone is simply divided up into groups based on race and jumps to the conclusion that some sort of "unseen" privileges exist for only white people. Though I agree that in some cases, races other than "whites" will experience opression and prejudice, it is hasty to claim that these privileges are given only to whites. I mean think about it, what would happen if a white guy moved in between two black families, who's the minority now? I often see albums that appeal to a multitude of races at music stores and I most definately would not cry about the fact that band-aids are more or less fair colored, for God's sake isn't there such thing as dinosaur themed band-aids!?


-Patrick

white privelege

As a white male, I would have to agree with McIntosh with her list of white priveleges that apply especially to males as well. However I do not feel that a large part of her list apply only to whites or males(if altered slightly). I felt that 26 was something that I had never thought of before and made a lot of sense, even if it is not something that I might deem critical to my way of life, it shows how society is dominated by whites and their special advantages. I thought that 16 was exteremely important but I would hope that something such as this is starting to change as a more global awareness is arising, but maybe I'm just being naive. Although I do benifit greatly from my race and sex, it is not to say that it has not also been a disadvantage as well, as I have been harrassed, not by authority figures, and jumped, which certainly is not fun. I have also been in situations with the police when I was arrested and no special treatment or anything of the sort was given to me as opposed to the rest of those arrested with me, although I was still a minor and this might have changed had I been an adult. The one thing I find almost unrealistic is the way in which McIntosh expects people (whites and men) to get angry about their undeserved priveleges. I just do not see this happening, mostly because I just do not see how it would happen
Travis

Upper Middle Class White Male

what can i say? i was born into it, not only am i white, but a male as well. this being the case, i can say that all of the advantages on that list not only apply to me, but were written and targeted specifically at me. i was the kind of person that was being thought of when that was written. its hard to think of any more off the top of my head that i fall under, all the most obvious ones were in the article. but just to recant a few of them; i have never been followed in a store (and i even have stolen from one), most of the music i listen to is made, produced, sold, etc. by white guys, the cops have never bothered me personally, and my parents actually made me go to a UC over the less expesnive SF state.
now that i think about it, its actually very suprising to me that i cant think of a single incident in my life where i was disadvantaged because of my race or gender; i suppose that im just lucky to have been born into the situation that i was born into. i know that there must have been at least one time in my life when somthing has happened...but it must just not have been big or important enough for me to remember it. if i think of any i will come back to this post and add it on.

Nick

Reprint of all blog questions to date

All blog questions to date:

What do you like least about your hometown?
How might Frankenstein relate to Rousseau's State of Nature/Hobbes' State of War?
What is the problem that faces you?
What is the monster in Things Fall Apart?
What are the characters and setting for your problem?
What is the worst job you've ever had-or-What are you being educated for?
What exemplifies strength in your culture?
Posting of synthesis of in-class exercise (the 'missing perspective').
Is violence ever a good idea?
List the privileges you share with McIntock? What disadvantages do you experience?
Response to problem assignment (due only if you have received assignment)

In my response to your portfolios to date, I am tracking all posts not related to the creative project. I am pegging that number at 8. You will get a number that reads: n of 8 posts to date. By the end of the quarter, 80% of blog posts will be required for credit on 'reading responses'. Anything fewer than 80% will diminish your grade. I will repost the total number of blogs, as well as all the blog question again before final portfolios are due.

-Dillon

My White Ass Privilage

Being a white male I have grown up with all the advantages listed on McIntosh’s list and then some. I had never looked at it that way but everything McIntosh pointed out is absolutely true. The attitude I was born and raised with is absolutely shocking. I am indeed extremely privileged especially now that I live in an area where white is that majority. The reference to the terms “them” and “us” is especially true and I am amazed that I never thought of it that way, I guess we (white males) have something of a superiority complex going on. One of the most noticeable examples of white privilege can be seen in airport security, I have never been personally searched but I have seen people with colored skin and funny headgear searched many times. The only time I have ever been at a disadvantage for being white was at home in Hawaii, I was not representative of the majority and the majority, when inebriated, did not like me or my kind very much. But that’s about it, in every other aspect of my life I have been at a social and economical advantage.

Violence

I think in certain situations violence is necessary or at least thing best thing for that situation. i think using violence is justified if it is used in defense. i don't think violence should be used to enforce things. in the past leaders have used violence as a way of enforcing certain laws or policies. the only way to get a group of people to unite in reaching a common goal is through understanding, not by aggressive force. but in other situaitons violence is necessary to help the common good. if someone were hurting ones family or friend, a person has a right to fight back, just the way a person has the right to fight for the good in the world. for example in the holocaust, violence was neccessary to stop the horrors that were happening. but everyone at that time simply said that they wanted to stay neutral. but in being "neutral" they were also the cause of the problem. in that situation it was necessary for people to be aggressive. violence can be avoided though. for example gandhi's policy of nonviolence. that was a very good example where violence could have been used and would have been some what justafiable. but gandhi was able to reach his goal with out using violence. this really shows the power peace can have.

violence

Is violence ever a good idea?

I want to say no. That is the answer that I really wish was true, and the one that I would say casually, but when carefully considering the realities of the question, I think that in some cases violence is not necessary, but the best option. Violence can be used in an innumerable amount of awful ways, in fact in almost all situations violence should be avoided, but there are some occasions when it must be used. If violence had never occurred, if the original act of violence had never happened, then violence would never be a good idea. The problem with this is that the initial act of it happened, and that led to the continuous revenge of some people against other people. To instigate violence is never a good idea, ever. To be the person to start violence for no previous reason, just because, will never be a good idea. However, when someone like Hitler starts to be violent, and not just violent but maliciously cruel to certain groups of people, I feel that the only good idea (that will work) is to be violent back. There are other good theoretical ideas, but when applied to reality I do not think they would match against people like Hitler. Some people don’t respond to what the rest of the world believes a sane human being would respond to, and so in these cases, the only way to fight the violence is with more violence. This seems like it is not helping the problem but creating more of it, and that might be true, but in the moment, people are dying, and the only way to stop that is to stop the people who are killing them. This does, in turn, probably lead to more violence, but if nobody had stood up to Hitler, if the world had said, “we will non-violently protest your atrocities”, he would be ruling the entire world with an iron fist right now. Sometimes violence is a good idea, and that is usually an indicator of how bad the situation is.

prejudice

Growing up, I always generally accepted the fact that, as a white, upper-middle class female, I was definitely privileged. The question of money has ever deterred me from doing something I seriously wanted to do, such as going on vacations or even going to college. Furthermore, when it came down to choosing colleges, I could have chosen UT Austin, which is significantly less expensive for out of state students and is still a great school, but because I arbitrarily decided that I liked Santa Cruz better after a short visit, my parents didn’t hesitate for a second before agreeing to sign the check. When I was younger, I naively thought that racism, sexism, and classism weren’t really big issues in our society anymore, simply because I didn’t feel any major effects of them. However, when I was seventeen, I was driving home with two of my friends when I realized that there was a cop behind me with his lights flashing. I pulled over, and he got out of his car and proceeded to walk over and yell at me about how I had been flying down the 40 mph road at at least 60 mph (definitely not true). Furthermore, he stated that he’d had his lights on for over a mile (I had literally just turned onto the road and he hadn’t been behind me before I’d turned onto it.) He asked if I’d been drinking (I hadn’t) and made me get out of the car – I was on my way back from a fashion show, so I had heels on, and I stumbled a little bit on the uneven ground, to which he responded by pushing me up against the car, patting me down, then making me walk a straight line (which I have trouble doing sober or not). He asked who the car belonged to, and when I said it was mine, he kind of laughed and made a comment about “girls like you.” To make a longer story a little shorter, he made a few more condescending remarks before arresting me (in handcuffs and everything). I sat in the police station for about 20 minutes, where he continued to fire accusations at me and cut me off before I could answer. Sure enough though, as soon as my father showed up (he’s tall and affluent-looking – and better yet, he’s a lawyer) and began making a scene and demanding badge numbers, the cop literally curled up in a shell and began effusively apologizing. I suppose that’s the biggest example I can personally remember where because I was a white girl in designer clothes, driving a bmw, it pretty much sucked to be me at the moment.

Reading and blog assignment for Malcolm/Martin/McIntosh

We have quite a bit of reading in order to tackle the subject of race relations in the U.S. next week, so please start early.

In the reader, read:
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.- "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"
Peggy McIntosh- "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack"

in The Autobiography of Malcolm X, read the following chapters:
Ch. 1, Ch.'s 10-15, the last 3 pages of Ch. 17, Ch. 18

There is no good way to excerpt from this book. All of it is important, all of it is brilliantly told and written. What I have selected are the passages I view most cogent for having a discussion of race and racial politics over-all. If you have time, either now or in the future, read all of this book.

For the blog- report back the following:

List the privileges you enjoy, relative to your race, gender or class status. You can borrow these from McIntosh's list, or add some of your own. Next to that, list the ways you feel you have been disadvantaged or disenfranchised by the same institutions or systems McIntosh points to.

Finally, review the handout (reprinted below) and think about how you want a discussion on race in our classroom to be conducted. I expect, more than ever, that everyone will be at their best as students and people in order to go through this process intelligently and usefully. The expectation is born of my high regard for you as students and interlocutors. Have a good weekend,

Dillon

Guidelines for a discussion about race in(and) class-

Before we get started on this discussion, which it seems we are really anxious to have, there are some things we need to establish in order to have this conversation rationally and productively. To begin with, a few things to keep in mind while we re talking to one another:

- No one in class is a representative of whatever race or ethnicity you might think they are. No one can sensibly answer questions about “Mexicans” or “Asians” or any “them”, in a general, authoritative way. We can all only answers questions about ourselves and what we’ve experienced, and only when we want to.

- There’s a lot of names out there, let’s think about what they mean and their uses.
There are names with hyphens, African-American, Asian-American, etc. These terms are a way to refer to both where a person or group of people came from, and the fact that said person or persons now reside in the U.S.. They are useful terms because they are often the most accurate terms- they let us talk about the fact that someone has ancestors, possibly as close as one or zero generations away, from outside the U.S., but is today a citizen of the U.S. In the case of African-Americans, they allow us to replace terms which many have argued are derogatory: “negro” and “black”. You can still find the former used in literature up until the mid-1960’s. The latter has not dropped out of use completely, and in many cases there is ambiguity about whether its use is appropriate.
In the case of people who are themselves born, or whose ancestors were born, in Latin American countries, it makes no sense to use a term like Mexican-American, because Mexico is in the Americas. There are two broad ways to refer to folks form Central or South America. You can say Latino/a, which means simply that the person is from, or has ancestors from, a Latin American country, or you can designate the country itself: Mexicano, Salvadoreño, Cubano, etc.
There are also a special class of words adopted from the mother tongues of immigrant groups to talk about them. Terms like Chicano/a (for Mexicanos born in the U.S.), Pinoy/Pinay (for folks form the Philipines living in the U.S.), Desi (for folks from Southeas Asia- places like Pakistan and Bengladesh). Some of these terms have complicated histories that include derogatory connotations, so we must be attuned to trying to pick up the conventions of usage in a given community for clues on the appropriate way to use them.
- Finally, the special case of the word “nigga”. This word is connected historically to “nigger”, a word whose use no one is defending, and is itself now a distinct term. Many comedians have thought they are very clever pointing out that different rules attend the use of this word by different people. That’s true, but it’s also true of a word like “dumbass”, which you can use benevolently about a good friend, and maliciously against a stranger. The fact that the usage rules for “nigga” specify the race of the person using it seems to put some folks up in arms. It is worth remembering, in context of thinking about this word, that every word a black person could use for centuries was constricted, based solely on their race, in the same way that every other thing a black person could do was constricted by their race. The fact that there is now a single prohibition running in the opposite direction hardly seems, from this vantage point, all that great an injustice. My observation has been that the usage rules are far more complicated than ‘only African-Americans can use it in reference to themselves’. The word is embedded in certain cultural practices, particular to certain regions, and is as much an identity marker for those things as it is for race. If Bill Cosby used the word ‘nigga’ he would immediately be called out, because everyone knows damn well that no one in his neighborhood talks like that. It is entirely up to you whether or not you think you can or should use the word ‘nigga’. Like all choices, some consequence surely attends it.

After we’ve got our heads around that, we can begin talking about “race” and “racism”. First, however, I want to point out a few things:
- No one in this room is any one “race”. The percentage of people in the world whose genetic makeup is from only one of the anthropologically recognized racial groups, or smaller conventional ethnic groups, is probably much less than one percent. If you are European, you are possibly Celtic, Aryan, Teuton or any other number of things before you are “white”. If you are mexicano/a, you are possibly Aztec, Iberian, Celtic, or any other number of things before you are “mexican”. Something to think about. African-Americans are themselves most often descendant of several distinct African nations, as well as, in very many cases, some degree of “white blood”. Being of mixed race is the rule, rather than the exception, and it is purely a matter of ideology that only a minority have to navigate a mixed-race “identity”.
- In general, we don’t know anything about the contents of another person’s mind. If what we are understanding by the term “racist” is some set of ideas or beliefs in a person’s head, than we would do well to remember that we have no access to these ideas or beliefs outside of what a person says.
- There are many who have argued that the important phenomena connected to racism are not individual beliefs and ideas, but social conditions and institutions. This phenomenon, or group of phenomena, is called “institutional racism”. Institutional racism is concerned with larger patterns and forces in our society that seem to effect entire groups of people consistently, and with investigating the underlying causes. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the perspective studying institutional racism is not concerned with what individuals believe. On this view, it is entirely possible to participate in institutional racism, to be, in some sense, a “racist”, regardless of whether you hold any prejudices towards a person based on his or her ethnicity or religious background. You are a racist insofar as you benefit from institutional racism, by enjoying the appropriation of a greater degree of society’s resources for your group than are allotted to other groups, through systematic and purposive acts of governmental and non-governmental institutions.

what good is psychology for society

Psychology can be extremely benificial on a personal level. This sence of understanding that the field provides can heal and ease the pain and hardships of our everyday lives and personal situations. This allows all of us to function at a much higher rate which I believe collectively contributes to our society.

sam perman

violence

As a peace-loving Santa Cruzite, I hate to make agree that violence is ever a good thing, but sometimes, I think it might be naive to deny that it is. I believe that peace should be the first and foremost option, but when one is up against a violent or seriously oppressive force, retaliating with violence might be the only option. For example, if the American colonists remained peaceful with the British, there is a good chance that America would not be what it is today (which may or may not be a good thing, but that’s beside the point).

violence and psychology

Is violence ever necessary? Is it ever a good thing? I believe that in certain situations where no other solutions are possible, violence is the only means by which certain goals can be achieved. In some cases, all other options such as appeasement or diplomacy have been either eliminated or exhausted to the point where nothing else can be done. This is where violence not only becomes practical but justifiable. If suffering is great enough, and the situation so desperate to the point where people are willing to die for a cause is enough reason to convince me that violence can be at times the best option. I also feel that it is ingrained into our psyche as humans that when conditions are bad enough, retaliation to opression in violent form is a natural reaction that cannot be avoided no matter how civil and passive our society may become.

Psychology has become the study of the human nature from the basis of the mind to our modern day world. In this I feel that it has played a positive role in trying to demystify the secrets of our process of thought and how it reflects our every day behavior. Without the study of psychology we would be unaware to many of the traits that define human behavior and not only this but how to correct or counsel individuals who suffer from ailments that are relatively viewed as spiritual and metaphysical defects. It has helped us understand that maybe there is no "norm" to how the human mind thinks, and that there exists a multitude of different thought processes within the mind. Psychology is a very interesting and worthy subject of study yet I feel that there is still much to be learned about the infinitely complex mind of the human, an understanding that I hope will swell as the science grows wiser.

Is violence ever a good idea?

Hell yes it is. It should be avoided, of course, but it is useful when there are no other means. To use a metaphor, we should use violence like we SHOULD (not do) use brain-altering drugs. If a person is beyond the reach of human help, sometimes psychiatrists need to prescribe drugs to get that person to a place where they can work through their problems through therapy. In the same way, if a situation is beyond peaceful change, I fully advocate brief and judicial use of violence to get a foot in the door, so that the situation may be dealt with fully after a short period of gaining control. So, using a modern parallel, I would advocate a secret assassination of Osama bin Laden, but not war on Iraq. Violence should be used like a surgeon's knife, not a chainsaw.

Violence/Creative Project

Although violence is destructive and hurtful, sometimes it is necessary. If someone attacks me, I will defend myself but the meaning of the word violent changes. Gandhi wrote, "man does not live by destruction." True, life can not exist if man is constantly eradicating it, but life can not exist, either, if no one defends their right to life. Violence is never to be used simply to provoke another person or to intentionally hurt another, and in that sense, it is never a "good idea."

For my project, Dillon is having me write down every single belief I have, including what I consider good or bad/evil, how the world was created, what forces compel humans to take action or have emotions. It is difficult attempting to put everything I believe into words on paper and I might not even be able to get them all down, but it's still in progress.

Ali Nicolette

violence

I don't think violence is a good idea.From what I learn, I don't think it can resolve anything because you only can get what you want in a short moment. If a parent hits a child for something the child does wrong. The child would learn not to do it again but not because it's wrong but because of fear. The child would probably resent the parent over the years and that would create a bad bond between them. Also, When two people fight, one would either win or lose but from 10 or 15 years from now, it wouldn't matter. I never like the idea of using violence. I think witnessing it makes it awkward and kind of depressing for everyone.

violence/psychology

In the early ages of mankind, violence was a way of establishing dominance and settling disputes, because humans didn't have a better way of communicating. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we still have to resort to it nowadays in order to get our point across. It doesn't make any sense that the only way countries can settle an agreement is to bomb the hell out of eachother instead of talking it out, the only way we can create a sort of superior feeling for ourselves is to create a desperate situation in another place. Perhaps in the days when early humans were still using rocks to fight it was more understandable, but I just don't understand why, when the world has an exceptional capability to use language to communicate, weapons of mass destruction are still necessary. I think violence should only be resorted to as a means of defense, but if the opposing side hadn't used violence in the first place, it wouldn't be necessary at all.

What good is psychology for the world? I don't think I've fully comprehended yet the subtle benefits that understanding human psychology gives us. Perhaps by understanding the human mind better, we can understand eachother more and we become less self-centered in our daily lives. We can also become happier with ourselves by going to a therapist who can help you work out problems you didn't know you had.

violence

Obviously, one's immediate response, to whether or not violence is a good idea, is "no, of course not". Violence is never a "good idea." No matter what someone does to you, you should never react back with violence, because it lowers you to their level. However, even if it may not be good, I can see why some people would resort to violence. Maybe because it is all they know. They grew up with it, culturally, and so they don't know how to deal with things in any other way. Or, maybe, in order to have the biggest impact on your enemies or whoever you are trying to prove, violence is the only way to accomplish what you want.

Violence is not a good idea in any situation, no matter what the circumstances are. However, sometimes it can be warranted because it is the only thing to get the job done or the point across.

-Rene Tanaka

Is Violence ever good?

Non violent and self sacraficing deeds are more powerful and less destructive to the world as a whole. However humans have naturalized violence and they see it as the primary form of resistance. Violence is also the instinctual path that animals resorted to. I would only condone violence if there is no other way to counter another violent force. Sometimes people are only perceptive of violence, especially in immediate situations. If people were to become aware of the sucess of non violent protest and self sacrafice less violence would be iniated and perpetuated. If women played a different role in societies across the world I believe that violence would be much less common.

viloence

I would never go so far as to assert that violence is nessisary how ever i would say that it is an enherent part of the human condition. Through out history man has always dissplayed a pentchant for the viloent and brutal. Perhaps it could be disscribed as a regression as sorts, in reaction to being subblimated into an artifical society, however that does not explain away the fact that man in nature most liky a violent indiviual him self. To every to abolish viloence in man kind would be foolish, it will always show its self in one way or another, the only way to control is a strong central goverment of the nobiity who will have the wisdom and forsight to guid the pridomently ignoremt masses.

Is violence really necessary?

I have always disagreed with violence for the question, What will i get out of hitting that person? Or killing someone? Well if i hit someone or kill someone i will feel good about myself, and perhaps some relief, but only temporarily relief, so in the end, it shall turn out to be unncessary. How about we talk things out. There's not need for violence, but of course if you hit me, i will hit you back. So self-defense is necessary, especially the person has been hitting you for a while now and it's hard to make 'em stop so that you can talk things out...ya know? Through my perspective, violence is only necessary when needed. But otherwise, nope, because if you do hit someone you are in a way oppressing them. Remember, the oppressed become the oppressors.. I forget who quotes that.

-Claudia De Anda

Is violence ever a good idea?

For me this is a hard question to answer. I would like to say no, but the truth is there are times that I think violence is necessary. After reading Ghandi, I felt that he made a very compelling argument about why non violence is the best form of fighting. I think that in many circumstances, using non violent means to fight for what you believe in would work. I think that Ghandi made it very clear that non violence is the best answer to any problem and I would have to say that I agree for the most part.

Violence

Violence is splendid! The word itself has nothing to do with destruction, it is an immense emotion. We all have to fight at some point our another, and its hard to fight passively-some can, but I tend to enjoy little bursts of violence. Violence is the tempest rage within our soul that tears through the darkness. It is the accumulation of our daily torment, the breaking point when we can't tke much more. Violence is seen as many as this "negative emotion" responsible for much of our worlds "pain and suffering". WRONG. Our pain and suffering is caused by cold calculated decisions by rotting carcases in business suits. Violence is the very thing that wins the battle, not the thing that starts it, so lets stop attacking it, and start recognizing it's productive value.

Under what circumstances does a person become lost from his/her self?

First one must define the self as a singular entity, one that is incapable of finding much of anything. I think we as humans are continuously trying to loose ourselves. We loose ourselves by finding another. So inorder to loose our self, we must reach out for someone else. So I say...get lost!

Under what circumstances does a person become lost from his/her self?

First one must define the self as a singular entity, one that is incapable of finding much of anything. I think we as humans are continuously trying to loose ourselves. We loose ourselves by finding another. So inorder to loose our self, we must reach out for someone else. So I say...get lost!

Violence

I don’t think violence is ever a good idea or even necessary. However, that doesn’t mean it won’t or shouldn’t happen. Violence is deeply imbedded in the human psyche. We evolved through violence, the hardest and most violent survived by eliminating the weaker members of society. This might not necessarily be "good," but it created a much stronger race. We are competitive by nature and the greatest form of competition is violence. Men fight each other; if this world was run by women violence would be obsolete. Violence may not be a good idea but it happens and we need to learn to live with it.

Violence

While reading Gandhi I was totally convinced in the ways of nonviolence and could raise no objections to this philosophy. But in terms of many social movements that I have been learning about, I do not see how many would be successful without the use of violence, even if it is only being used sybolically. I did not read the autobiographical section and would be interested if it explained how Gandhi started his movement and how he contributed through his nonviolent means. But for some more recent movements, violence is a way of crying out for international and local attention and can help a lot. The Zapatistas declared war against Mexico and fought with government troops, and made threats, many which probably they would have been unable to back up. But they used this violence as a way to gain international attention and support for their cause, so I feel that in cases such as these, violence is necessary and nonviolence would lead to the slow suppression and eventual end of these people and their way of life.
Travis

Violence

It is not hard to misinterpret the teachings of Gandhi. At first glance, many would say that his teachings offer a resignation from fighting the evils of the world, this is however, obviously not his message. Gandhi would say that violence is never truly necessary because there are always alternate ways of fighting. He believed that non-violence was the more active way of fighting evil because using brute force to fight brute force only perpetuates the vicious cycles of violence. He believed that sacrificing oneself was far better for humanity than sacrificing others in order to get your way. I believe that Gandhi is correct when saying that self-sacrifice is the most powerful form of fighting of evils. If one believes that the soul transcends far beyond the body in it's earthly realm, they should have to problem giving up their body for their cause. I do believe that violence in some cases is well justified and necessary. For example, if a women is assaulted by a man with intentions of rape, she should do everything in her power to fight off the man. People always have the right to value their life and do anything they can to ensure their own survival in desperate situations.

-Sam Rosenzweig

Isaac- 2/19/07 Is Violence Ever a Good Idea?

"Peace is not without conflict but it is the ability to cope with conflict," Leo Miguel Giron
I beleive the founder of the phillipino knife and stick fighting art, escrima, has powerful words in this statement. This topic is something I've done a lot of thinking about over the years and has really shaped much of my perspective of the world. When I was younger, most likely in the naivte and absence of knowing how to throw a punch, I claimed to be an avid pacifist. In my social circle this did now play out well and I've taken a good share of injuries because of it. As I grew older I obviously did not want this to repeat and so my white flag excuse of pacifism, a philosophy of self victimization, was no longer used. The subject is still ambigious in my mind but I say this with conviction: I don't beleive in an eye for an eye but if you try to snatch out my eye or the eye of anyone I love, I'll take your head.

Is Violence Ever a Good Idea?

Yet another difficult question to answer. off the top of my head i would say no. i am an avid pacifist, and as such i dont think that violent action is ever really needed. unfortunately in a lot of cultures around the world and, in my opinion, in every major religion, violence is a major part of it.

i dont believe that violence ever really does anything but breed more violence, so whats the point of it really? there isnt one.

there is only one point where i might drift towards violence, and its a stretch; that would be on the topic of euthenasia. i think that people should have the right to be euthenized if they really want to be. most people dont consider that violence, but some might.

in short, violence is never a good idea, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and that whole lot.

Nick

What good is psychology for society?

'Psychology attempts to explain consciousness, behavior, and social interaction,' says wikipedia. Psychology finds ways to help people understand themselves, and how they think. It also finds problems in the way people think and interact with others. On the other hand, psychology has the potential to overanalyze people and make them believe they dont have control over their own mind. So, I would have to say that psychology is good for society while it maintains that it isn't fact. Psychology is what one person thinks about what another person is thinking. This has lots of wiggle room in interpretations and thought. To sum it up, psychology is extremely good for a society in the way that it helps people overcome problems and understand what they and others are thinking but it has the potential to be taken to seriously and impact a society in a negative way. As long as people know that everyone thinks differently, psychology has a valid place in our society.

-Trevor Wood

Is Violence Ever a Good Idea?

The answer to the question of whether or not violence is ever a good idea is yes. There are always going to be certain instances where violence is needed. When someone or something is threatening something or someone you love, I see no problem with violence. Other than that, there are really not many good reasons for violence. I have been in fights and whether or not you win you end up with some gnarly injuries. Nobody wins in a fight really, its just the person who gives up first. Violence in society is extremely overplayed and seen as the way to solve things, I do not agree. Violence should be seen as a last resort when everything else one could do has been exhausted. Violence is not the best idea but it should never be dismissed entirely if the moment calls for it.

-Trevor Wood

What good is psychology in the world.

The world is made up of many people with unique experiences,thoughts,and life goals.Sometimes events,thoughts,trauma get in the way of your life and maybe a little help would not be so bad.I believe psychology is very important,because it helps people realize what the person or what you are all about.Some people need it more than others.Personally I like psychologist and If it wasn't for them I probably not be here today.There just people that help you clarify your thoughts.Psychology is a very vast field ,many people don't even realize there is different types of psychologist.

Blog Question for 2/20 and reading assignment

Hi Folks,

First, read the following:
in Gandhi- ch.'s II, III, VI and XI
in your course reader, the selection from Franz Fanon' Wretched of the Earth
if you want, you can continue on in Gandhi and read the autobiographical ch. I and anything else that looks interesting.

When you have read, answer the following question on the blog:

Is violence ever a good idea?

Also, if you were absent on 2/13, answer this question:

What good is psychology for society?

ciao,

Dillon

Response Group Dos y Frankl

Both Nietzsche and Marx accept that urban areas are a vital part of modern intellectual, social, and economic life. There are bad sides and pitfalls but in general both authors accept it as a necessity of modern existence. Cities bring people together and the sharing of knowledge and new ideas becomes widespread far quicker.

"Knowledge through contradiction" in a way fits into Frankl's logotherapy. Frankl proposes that one should think of the opposite in order to get through ones neurological disorder. For example if one were unable to sleep they should try with all their might to stay up as long as possible. This in essence is "knowledge through contradiction." They contradict their mental condition in order to get over it.

An object in motion

The conflict in the arguments for prompt #3 goes as follows:
The notion of strength and the celebration of its expression as the unifying concept between the two quotes vs. there being two different conceptualizations for strength, so therefore while they agree on a surface level they are actually addressing two different things.

The missing perspective? I suppose that this conflict is just two sides of the same coin. We should look at the big picture and realize that both viewpoints can be a valid way to understand the world.

Logotherapy offers the notion that we have the freedom to choose our own attitude--we should realize that the fact that we can randomly argue either side of a conflict is pretty darn awesome. We are finding "knowledge through contradiction" because we are finding the meta-narrative or greater knowledge out of what could appear to be an insoluble conflict.

~Tara

respond on qoutes #2

“The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared to the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.” (CM, Part I)“(B)ut it is only fair to add that it was on the soil of this essentially dangerous form of human existence, the priestly form, that man first became an interesting animal, that only here did the human soul in a higher sense acquire depth and become evil...” (OGM, First Essay, Section 6)

I believe that the quote is interesting but I still have my opinion on society. I believe that in order for a country to be rich there must be a middle class. For example, in Mexico there is only the rich and the poor and there is no middle class so it is impossible or difficult for a person to jump from one class to another. Where as in America a person can work really hard to move up the scale because the opportunity is there. Also the reason why America is so strong is because the middle class makes the economy stronger.This is seen in Niet... and Marx's.

Nietzsche & Culture/ In class Assignment #2

1. In my culture strength is only seen through male figures. Women are weak creatures who need men to protect them from the rest of the cruel world. Male figures are dominant and are the ones with the power. Men are presented as macho and always ready to protect their honor and image.
2. Nietzsche refers to strength in On the Genealogy of Morals as those of a higher class such as nobles or aristocrats. According to Nietzsche the translation of good in other languages means noble or aristocratic. The power is only given to those in a position of nobility. The people with the strength or power are those of the higher classes.

In Class Assignment #2
The following quotes do agree with each other. I believe in both quotes it speaks of the advance of human nature. Marx speaks about how towns save people from a ridiculous life where as Nietzsche speaks about how man was enlightened through the priestly form. Basically Human are able to progress for the better. The only that conflicts in the quotes is in the second quote in which Nietzsche refers to the depth acquired as “evil” and a “dangerous form” other than that they would flow nicely.

“The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared to the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.” (CM, Part I)

“(B)ut it is only fair to add that it was on the soil of this essentially dangerous form of human existence, the priestly form, that man first became an interesting animal, that only here did the human soul in a higher sense acquire depth and become evil...” (OGM, First Essay, Section 6)

strength in my culture and niet...

In my culture, people that can do things on their own is considered a strong person. It doesn't matter how many loads of stuff you can carry. If you do something that's admirable like support 10 kids as a single parent, that's considered strength because that single parent worked hard to support 10 kids by him or herself. If you heavily rely on others to help you, that's considered weak and weakness has no place in my culture.

Nietzsche think strength is a person that does admirable things like reliving a life of pain. If a person can endure suffering and pain, that person is strong. Despite the suffering, the person would still continue to live their life and not let anything beat them up.

In class Group assignement

I agree. Both quotes explain h ow the way our society is set up, slits us apart, and makes us self centered...The bourgeoisie does end the rank that we have in todays society. It makes the human race equal. Being rich can be a dangerous thing, causing man to turn on each other. Money causes a relationship between two people to change. Quotes one and two agree because there is a discontect between man and man, but the relationship afterwards is a cash payment relationship, where Nietzsche says there is huge divde that no one dares to cross. The quotes connect as they both deal with the disconnection of man to his fellow man. In Marx we see that the bourgeosie have replaced the fuedal system of contact with one where masters and workers only meet through the exchange of money. Nietzsche writes that the values of the meek priests also serve to serperate the peoples. It seems that Marx in this passage would agree with Nietsche that a fuedal system is almost better as there existed "natural superiors" and they had power strength and beauty as opposed to the weak vengeful priests.

on the other hand...

I disagree, the human ranse can't be truely equal. SOme of us are more motivated, creative or inteligent. People contribute to society in different ways, some of which are harder then others. People need to be paid according to their efforts. WE are naturally self centered. We can't give up money and the pleasures that it brings. The quotes disagree because the relationships between man are not the same. Marx says that there is a relationship between man and man, but its not a good one because it is based around "hacked self interest" or "cash payments" Nietzsche, however believes there is no relationship and that there is a huge divide between men that no one would be willing to cross it. Marx claims that there exists a disconnect between peoples because of the cash system put in place by the bourgeoisie, but this is done only out of neccessity from the bourgeoisie point of view, whereas the separation of peoples, from Nietzsche point of of veiw arises out of revenge (quote 2) and a desire to do harm to others (quote 3) the priests in quote 2 set up their own set of values that deem the others as evil and therfore themselves as good. The bourgeoisie does discuss the fact that people only meet through the exchange of money, however it is through everyone not just masters and slaves. Though it is in an example, money brings people together and rips them apart. Values of priests are meant to bring people together not just seperate.

Isaac- Missing Perspective

-First thoughts-"They disagree. The first one asks if rich/in charge/powerful are better than poor/obedient/weak. At the end of the first quote it states not to compare with slaves and masters but with free truth seeking men. The second one says that noble/aristocratic are better than common/plebian. It seems to me that the second does the opposite of that was intended."-Opposition-“I think they agree. They are both saying that just because the way people are labeled makes them either "good" or "bad" - equal or unequal. Both agree that "good" is associated with rich and aristocratic and "bad" is associated with poor and slaves."

I think what is not being touched here is not how people choose to label others, but themselves. I don't beleive either of them imply that the noble/aristocrat is better than the common man but try to understand why this is the common assumption. As Nieztsche points out, one of the reasons this inequality among men may have come to exist is because of the value men placed in themselves above all others. Rouseau is questioning this ego driven assumption of the "good."
Isaac

Critical Mass texts

This is a response to group 3:
Okonkwo has physical strength that he feels he must display in front of others because he is determined to not be considered weak. He also has a personal strength in the form of determination to not be weak and to be the leader of his family and tribe. Okonkwo has determined to represent himself as strength, since strength is what makes him the leader he is and strength is what defines his position in relation to everyone else. Therefore in order to establish this strength it is essential that it must be shown as strength to the rest of the community.
Analysis of knowledge through contradiction:
Knowledge through contradiction is a mixture of psychoanalysis and logotherapy. It is retrospective and it looks to the past in search of answers instead of analyzing the present problem directly. However this method does consolidate several opinions and factors in search of the simple solution.
Natalie Stameroff

Agree, Disagree (group)

Agree:
The monster in Frank. agrees with the ideas of Nietzsche because the monster views his creator, Victor as inherently evil. Victor has power over everything on the monster, especially his happiness. For this reason, the monster seeks out vengeance. This goes along with the ideal of good and evil in Nietzsche.
Disagree:
However, there is another way to look at it. Victor could be seen as the "good" character and the monster as the "bad". Victor is convinced he is good simply because he is creating something out of nothing, he sees himself as the good one, where as the monster is evil because victor is afraid of him. The monster has complete control of Victor and his life through the act of inflicting fear.

Group #4’s arguments/Frankl

Although Rousseau and Nietzsche are addressing somewhat different matters, the basic of the nature of inequality is most certainly addressed by both of them. While Rousseau argues that it’s absurd to try to determine the cause of natural inequality, Nietzche attempts to look into that very subject.

I’m not sure how Frankl’s logotherapy relates to “knowledge through contradiction,” although I suppose it’s because Frankl challenges the individual to search for meaning no matter what and to change his or her self and attitude to fit any bad situation.

In Class Quote Comparisons Group #5

Sorry about the lateness of this post everyone. I totally misunderstood what we were to do with this work and typed it up and brought it to last class thinking Dillion had wanted us to do something with them there but I didn't understand they were meant to be posted on the blog. Anyways...

I think that this quote from Frankenstein connects to Nietzsche because the monster became overcome with a thirst for vengeance and decided to act upon it. In Nietzsche’s second essay he writes about how conscience and the ability to mask free will. The conscience is referred to as a dominating instinct. This dominating instinct seems to be telling the monster to get revenge.

R: Revenge is a reactionary instinct that is only created when one is concerned with overthrowing the power of another. The monster’s free will is vengeance because he is not socialized so his guilt does not last for long.

The monster of Frankenstein is made to be the epitome of evil, but he was nothing but a being with no understanding of its purpose or existence until he lets the branding words of those who deem him such win out as a self fulfilling prophesy. However, after wallowing in the depression and torment of his own horrific existence, he decides to seek revenge against that source which gave rise to his tormented life, a source which sees no remorse or pity for its action and chooses to fight back. Frankenstein’s monster is the revolt of the lowly masses, defined as abhorrent by the aristocracy who think they have trapped them with their moral bearings.

R: Before the monster decided to take revenge, he had pity for Frankenstein. He decided to take revenge when Frankenstein tried to bring happiness to his own life while harming the monster. He didn’t always want to take revenge.

Nietzsche says “whoever clumsily interposes the concept of revenge does not enhance his insight into the matter, but further veils and darkens it (for revenge merely leads us back to the same problem. “how can making suffering constitute a compensation?”)” p151 essay 2 #6
The passage from Frankenstein shows the circular reasoning that guilt and revenge create. The hatred that the monster builds up as a result of his guilt fills him with the creativity for vengeance that Nietzsche describes. The hatred that the monster has is momentarily forced inward after the murder of Clerval but he then turns it into vengeance.

R: You made a good connection, and honestly I think you’re right. If I have to argue against it though, I guess I could say that instead of just being circular and making Frankenstein suffer, the monster is trying to achieve justice in the only way he knows how and can.

The monster feels urges that Frankenstein should seek to feel enjoyment, a feeling that he will never have. This relates to Nietzsche’s good vs. bad essay because Frankenstein, the creator of the monster and thus his superior, has taken it upon himself to deem the monster as “bad” and himself and mankind as “good.” The monster’s resentment leads him to create his own values and he deems Frankenstein as a man who should be hated for the horrible thing that he had done and for wishing to be happy while he could not be.

R: If Frankenstein’s monster represents the slave revolt’s redefinition of morality, when then does Frankenstein represent a moral prerogative of Christian humility, and his creation, the greatness of a Greek god? Is Frankenstein’s monster better thought of as Nietzsche’s superman?

Blog Assignment for 2/13 and Misc.

Esteemed Students,

We are reaching a critical mass of texts thus far, many of them both dense and important, so I want to find a way for us to continue digesting them en masse and in their interconnections. For this week, read:

Frankl: 119-160
Sartre (Marino): 349-357
Shelley: 168-191

And on the blog, go to one of the giant quote comparison posts that you did not originally participate in and do the following (note, I've reproduced the entire set of quote comparisons at the bottom, for you to review):
Read over the entire thing, consider all the viewpoints, and try to find the missing perspective that can "cure" it of its conflict. That is, try to find the sentence or set of sentences that can synthesize all the conflict into a coherent statement- or even into nonsense that is less conflicted.

I'm calling this exercise: "knowledge through contradiction". Compare this to Frankl's logotherapy.

Finally, I want to try to cut down on the lag time at the beginning of class. In some cases, students have come in at the very tail-end of an two-part exercise, making the second half entirely useless. This is frustrating for everyone. Let's shoot for being seated and ready to dive in no later than 5 minutes after class starts for the rest of quarter. For those presenting, especially if you are using tech stuff, arrive early. That's all, see you Monday at lecture (be there).

“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors,” and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment” (Communist Manifesto, Part I)

“On the other hand, to be sure, it is clear from the whole nature of an essentially priestly aristocracy why antithetical valuations could in precisely this instance soon become dangerously deepened, sharpened, and internalized; and indeed they finally tore chasms between man and man that a very Achilles of a free spirit would not venture to leap without a shudder.” (On The Genealogy of Morals, First essay, section 6)

“(T)he major moral concept Schuld (guilt) has as its origin...the very material concept Schulden (debts)... And whence did this primeval, deeply rooted, perhaps by now ineradicable idea draw its power- this idea of an equivalence between injury and pain? I have already divulged it: in the contractual relationship between creditor and debtor, which is as old as the idea of “legal subjects” and in turn points back to the fundamental forms of buying, sellings, barter, trade and traffic.” (OGM, Second Essay, Section 4)

“The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared to the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.” (CM, Part I)

“(B)ut it is only fair to add that it was on the soil of this essentially dangerous form of human existence, the priestly form, that man first became an interesting animal, that only here did the human soul in a higher sense acquire depth and become evil...” (OGM, First Essay, Section 6)

“Okonkwo was well known throughout the nine villages and even beyond. His fame rested on solid personal achievements. As a young man of eighteen he had brought honor to his village by throwing Amalinze the Cat. Amalinze was the great wrestler who for seven years was unbeaten, from Umuofia to Mbaino. He was callet the Cat because his back would never touch the earth. It was this man that Okonkwo threw in a fight which the old men agreed was one of the fiercest since the founder of their town engaged a spirit of the wild for seven days and seven nights.” (Things Fall Apart, Chapter 1)

“To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a desire to throw down, a desire to become master, a thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs, is just as absurd as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength.” (OGM, First Essay, Section 13)

“It were absurd to ask, what is the cause of natural inequality, seeing the bare definition of natural inequality answers the question: it would be more absurd still to inquire, if there might be some essential connection between the two species of inequality, as it would be asking, in other words, if those who command are necessarily better men than those who obey; and if strength of body or mind, wisdom or virtue are always to be found in individuals, in the same porportion with power, or riches: a question, fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their masters, but unbecoming free and reasonable beings in quest of truth.” (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality)

“(E)verywhere ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the social sense, is the basic concept from which ‘good’ in the sense of ‘with aristocratic soul,’ ‘noble,’ ‘with a soul of a high order,’ ‘with a privileged soul’ necessarily developed: a development which always runs parallel with that other in which ‘common,’ ‘plebian,’ ‘low’ are finally transformed into the concept ‘bad.’ (OGM)

“After the murder of Clerval, I returned to Switzerland, heart-broken and overcome. I pitied Frankenstein; my pity amounted o horror: I abhorred myself. But when I discovered that he, the author at once of my existence and its unspeakable torments, dared to hope for happiness; that while he accumulated wretchedness and despair upon me, he sought his own onjoyment in feelings... from the indulgence of which I was forever barred, then impotent envy and bitter indignation filled me with an insatiable thirst for vengeance.” (Frankenstein, Walton’s final letter).

Nietzsche, et al.



Dillon

In class work

Group #4

First thing, to be fair to all the people in this group I have place “**” and “*” next to some of the writing. The person who has the “**” symbol next to their writing didn’t try and do the class work. The person who wrote the passage with the “*” did exactly as instructed and wrote in opposition to the writing before it.

-First thoughts-
"I believe that the quotes agree with each other. Just because of how someone is labeled, that makes them either good or bad - equal or unequal."
-Opposition-
"The two quotes disagree because the first quote the poses the question if opposites are equal or is one better? At the end of the first it states that the question should not be answered by slaves and their masters but between free truth seeking people. To me it seems like the first question is seeking an answer of "No". The second quote seems to answer the first quote but it is saying "Yes"."

-First thoughts-
"They disagree. The first one asks if rich/in charge/powerful are better than poor/obedient/weak. At the end of the first quote it states not to compare with slaves and masters but with free truth seeking men. The second one says that noble/aristocratic are better than common/plebian. It seems to me that the second does the opposite of that was intended."
-Opposition-
“I think they agree. They are both saying that just because the way people are labeled makes them either "good" or "bad" - equal or unequal. Both agree that "good" is associated with rich and aristocratic and "bad" is associated with poor and slaves."

-First thoughts-
"Both quotes speak of inequality in society between the wealthy and the poor, and both question whether or not those of the aristocracy are truly "better" than those of the lowest class. They both bring up that people naturally associate "good: and "virtue" with the rich, while "bad" and "low" are associated with the poor. So, based on these similarities, say the quotes agree/connect with each other."
-Opposition-
**"that looks like it makes a lot of sense, and any way I wouldn't really care if we got rid of every class, cos they take waaay to much work."

-First thoughts-
**"The quotes all seem to be in agreement with each other except for the one about Neiche in the bathtub rolling cigarettes with his tongue, I thought Marx might have a little trouble with that statement, on the foundation that is a bit overdramatic. And I think he might have wanted some Cubans to dance at his party any way, cos the Russians can't really hold their liquor. The biggest problem with Things Fall Apart, is that Rambo couldn't pull it together with horses stampeding through his dreams.
On a more serious not, Okonkwo was not well known throughout the nine villages, he wasn't famous."
-Opposition-
*"I think that the one about Nietzsche in the bathtub wasn't overdramatic at all. If anything, it was mark dramatic. Furthermore, Russians invented vodka, so they can obviously hold their liquor. And, lastly, Rambo can always pull it together. Always."

Argumentative Exercise

Group 2

"I disagree that these quotes are at least somewhat connected. In the 1st quote he talks about how the bourgeoisie or industrialization has led to the people of the country side to flood in mass numbers to live in a closely contained city. He then goes on to mock the people of the rural populations by referring to their lifestyles as 'idiocy,' or stupid. This contrasts with what Nietzsche says, because as I interpret it, he is condemning urbanization. That when man tries to live packed into a densely populated area his nature begins to change. He calls urbanization an 'essentially dangerous' form of existence, for the reason that it leads the people to 'become evil.' He also then refers to man as an 'interesting animal,' which gives me the feeling he is bringing urbanized man down a level in terms of his civilization. Firstly, I'm surprised to hear Marx say he doesn't like the rural setting, because I think its when people go to the city is when they become a worker machine and add to the lower/poverty class."

"Conversely, I believe that the two passages are very closely related. I believe that although Marx generally supports the lower class, or the working farmers in rural settings, he argues in this passage that the higher class has saved the lower class from their 'idiocy' by building great cities and such. While Nietzsche generally supports the upper class, he argues in this passage that although they've contributed greatly to society, their complex characters and drives for power that makes them 'interesting animals' also has the potential to make them evil."

"In both passages, the authors state the benefits of having a higher class, regardless of their overall opinions. Both state at some point that the higher class is 'dangerous,' but without its genius sometimes, men would continue to live in 'idiocy.' Even in the end result or consequence was men becoming evil, at least they had the capacity to evolve into 'interesting animals' that could build 'enormous cities.'"

"The first quote from the Communist Manifesto claims that the bourgeoisie created enormous cities to save people and the population from the idiocy of rural life. This quote connects with the second quote by Nietzsche because both of them see the rural life as 'essentially dangerous,' here the human soul 'acquired depth and became evil.'"

"I like how you took it in terms of a higher class, but personally I felt they were more referring to the urbanization of the middle to lower classes. I do like how you mention without genius man continues to live in idiocy, I think Marx would agree with that. but I don't agree with the assumption that they're referring to the higher class, I believe both to be referring to the opposite. I feel they're dealing with the lower class, and the effects that civilization and rural living can have on them. And just because man can create doesn't give him the right to, or justify what he has created as being proper, or right."

"It seems in the Marx quote it is stated that the formation of townships is wholly a positive thing. It is not suggested that there could ever be a downside. Marx says that city life has 'rescued a considerable part of the population.' It is only in the Nietzsche quote that it is suggested that this is a 'dangerous form of... existence,' or that living in towns will make us evil. He does, however, argue that this has made us more interesting."

"Marx’s quote explaining that towns saved people from the 'idiocy of rural life' can be connected quite strongly to Nietzsche’s quote, which explains that it was in these towns that humans first learned how to be evil, and first became interesting. Marx and Nietzsche are both exploring the function of urban life. Marx believes it to be a step in the right direction for humans, while Nietzsche believes that without townships we have no souls. Nietzsche continues that it was because of the development of these towns and these souls that we first became capable of evil. Though Marx and Nietzsche agree that the formation of towns and cities is a positive thing, the latter seems to better see the cost."

"Although both Marx and Nietzsche believe that without townships we have no souls, this concept is entirely wrong. How can depth and evil be acquired only through other influences? Are we not born with these traits of evil or these characteristics that these philosophers think are brought on only by township. In this argument are one’s own family and close friends considered his township, or should his depth and evil be apart of strangers and acquaintances influence? Through Marx and Nietzsche’s argument man is not whole by himself, he needs a township to create his depth. This is something that, if anything, creates competition, greed, and superficial happiness, not depth."

Class Exercise minus two contributors who didn't e-mail me

From my understanding of the quotes agree. The selection from Things fall Apart represents strength through Okonkwo who has been able to defeat the cat because of his strength and has not held back. Nietzsche in the following quote appears to be saying that we should not demand strength to be anything but strength. He also relates strength to power and triumph.

I disagree because i believe these two paragraphs don't agree with each other. I believe they have different meanings. I think one is talking about physical strength while the other paragraph talks about the definition. i think Nietzsche is arguing the meaning of strength with support to back it from the definition of weakness.

Both paragraphs talk about strength. They both agree with each other in that sense, but the difference is the first one is talking more about physical strength and the second paragraph seems to be more defining of the word strength. So they really don't agree with each other that much.

In Okonkwo's world the will to power rallies less an intellectual and spiritual strength when could be different as the two other aspects to power and move on the third aspect: physical strength. So in context to his own culture Okonkwo is in a sense a perfect example of Nietzsche's will to power through strength.

They connect, for sure. Indeed, Nietzsche’s quote could have come straight out of Okonkwo’s mouth. If you asked Okonkwo to express himself only in weakness he would be outraged, he would call your request “absurd.” As such Okonkwo’s character is an affirmation of Nietzsche’s assertion.

However, Nietzsche is looking at it the wrong way, we shouldn’t ask strength to act weak or weakness to act as strength. Instead we should ask strength to curb it’s demonstration and weakness to strive a little more. The key to a happy existence is not one over the other but a balance of both. Everything in moderation.

Nietzsche is not asking for strength to act as weakness but stating that it does not work just as weakness cannot pretend to be strength. If weakness were to strive than it would not be considered weakness anymore because it will then acquire the strength to be better. Basically there are those that try and those that do not.

Agree/ Disagree Quotes (Danny, Trevor, Matt, Olivia)

Agree
The two quotes somewhat disagree. Marx's quotes sounds more positive about human modernization. To Marx, modernization rescued the people from the devisation of rural life. Urbanization is the best way, the right way. Marx even suggests that a rural life style is idiotic. That to even settle with living a rural life style would be foolish. But the second quote maes modernizatioon or just any form of human advancment sound evil. It suggests that, although mankind became a race of depth and interst, it also became more corrupt.

Disagree
They do agree! Marx might say they "resque the people from rural idiocy," but whose to say he doesn't think rural simplicity is not a better thing? As taken from various Marxist writings, he believes in the overthrow of the burgoisie. there fore, them modernizing into cities and urban areas isn't necessarily a good thing. This is also what Nietzsche says in man becoming more priest like (or burgoise), they indeed go in depth, but also they gain evil. In this Marx's reason to overthrow the burgoise (or priest like) is to rid corruption and evil. IAs for modernization, there is nothing wrong with it by both men's views. Nietzsche argues against the evil of priests, but not toward changing form itself.

Strength in My culture/Nietzsche/Achebe/Shelley

Strength in my culture is embodied in many different ways. Gender wise it usually pertains to the male form. It comes up alot on billboards, in magazines, riding the airwaves. Real strength is a high powered, efficiently fueled car engine. You'd be lucky to run into it in the middle of a cloud of smoke, its bround to bring tears to your eyes and put you on your knees with your head between your legs. To get just a bit stronger grab a couple drinks of the smooth, refreshing hard stuff, or a sip or two straight out of the Captains ship, lord knows it only gets harder. And please, be carefull not to vomit your soul into a plastic trash can. Are you coming off the line a bit to weakly? Show her your strength with a fresh new pair of kicks, flash her some of that sparkle and shine, low grade high class hardened masks are always nice. Or... if your tired of being peddled your daily dose, some chug down extra-strength- tired of lugging around the same old gun, this ones gauranteed not to shoot blanks... and in most cases will get you killed before you have a chance to fire. Strength in my culture rarely comes cheap, and is either bound to hook you by the balls, or hold your nose in the dirt, so my advice to every kid sucking society's big fat cock is remember how good the pain feels, cause you'll never be able to shake that beast off your ass. Can't you just have the balls to turn around and hold your ground until it takes your last fucking breath. Thats the only strength for my money.

Strength is represented in Nietzsce while he insists we are basically forces who stand against a prevailing wind. In other words while the world we live in destroys our bodies, our being insists that we can feel as much the day after our birth as we can the day before our death. Achebe describes strength in a more cultural context, usually through symbols such as warfare, bloodshed, and strife. Shelley depicts strength as some extraordinary search for vengeance that is never fulfilled in the mind of the main character but happens anyway due to the enivitable pursuit of nature.

Worst job I ever had

I worked at a dairy for an entire summer and the job smelled of shit, literally. It sucked as but I made a nice sum, and I'm sure a lot of you havn't been punished like that. I never want to see a cow again, but hamburgers and ice cream are a must just hope you never get stuck in Central California for the first eighteen years of your life.

great literature

Nietzsche essentially agrees with Umuofia's conception at strength. He says it is ridiculous not to express strength as a desire to me a baster, feared by others, to be a champion. This is exactly what Umuofia and Okonkwo believe about strength. / The quotes agree. Both are saying that things that are praised are personal achievements, personal showings of strength. They both show what a society praises and the OGM quote goes far enough to say that strength and the way we see it are almost inherent. They connect because TFA talks about Okonkwo's fame coming because of his strength while OGM says that the strength people have can't be hidden. Both praise the dynamic between the weak and the strong. / The quotes definitely agree and connect. In Umuofia, Okonkwo's strength is valued and respected; his capability to throw Amalinze the Cat is honored. Nietzsche agrees that strength acting as strength is the proper way of things, and so lends support to Okonkwo's honor: it is right that Okonkwo throws down and triumphs, because he is strong, and to pretend to be otherwise would be absurd. / The quotes agree in the sense that Okonkwo exhibits strength as strength by throwing the champion fighter and proving his might through an exhibition of power.

However I would say that they do not connect as well. While their meaning is more or less equivalent, their connection is inverse. Nietzsche defines strength by saying what it is NOT. Okonkwo merely proves his brute strength in battle. / The quotes do not agree, though Okonkwo shows physical strength, OGM speaks about a different kind of overall strength. / These quotes do NOT, of course, agree. Once is talking about a fight, and the other strength versus weakness. Nietzsche talks about our desires to prove our strength. The Achebe passage does not talk about desire at all. His exhibition of strength merely brings honor to his tribe. Nietzsche is discussing what culture demands of strength, how it should exists and be shown. In the Achebe quote, it talks not about cultures demands, it only tells a story about a powerful warrior winning a battle. / The quotes match fairly well without any context, but in context they clash rather drastically. Okonkwo personified Umuofia's idea of strength and honor. In the book it is this outlook that eventually brings the village and Okonkwo down. The focus on brute strength and power, especially in controlling others, creates an inflexible environment, and that if cracked, can crumble. / Nietzsche TOTALLY goes against Okonkwo. Okonkwo wasn't seeking triumph because he was strong, as Nietzsche asserts; he was merely using his strength as a too to win honor and recognition. Other people would use their skills or qualities that aren't strength to win renown; it's nothing specific to strength. Strength doesn't compel competition, survival does; strength happens to be a very helpful tool.

Hunter, Katie, Kyle, Ayaxy

Arguments For In Class Assingnment Group#4

Argument for lack of a connection/agreement between quotes:

1.)The two passages do not agree because Rousseau says that it is stupid to question the nature of difference between men. Nietzsche is questioning the etymological origin of the moral vernacular which separates some men from others. They are connected, but they do not agree.

2.)The quote from The Discourse on the origin of Inequality does not mesh completely with the quote from On the Genealogy of Morals because the first claims that questioning the cause of inequality is folly, whereas the second places the utmost importance upon the same question. Rousseau's position is that the commanders of the "slaves" have a natural distinction of being "better" than their underlings.

3.)I feel that Rousseau and Nietzsche's quotes do not agree-not because of any contradictions or conflict between the two, but because they are addressing different concerns. Rousseau is discussing natural superiority/inferiority and Nietzsche is discussing etymology.

4.)Rousseau's arguments do not necessarily imply that slaves should be the ones to question natural inequality. In fact, the passage "a question unbecoming free and responsible beings in the quest for truth" diminishes the value of the question, showing that any slave who poses this idea is really wasting his time.

Arguments for a connection:

states that those in "command" are better men souls" as if these people were born to be leaders/1.)The two passages connect in the sense that they discuss the difference between "better" men and less fit men. The first passage brings to the topic of discussion that it is absurd to try and look for the cause of inequality past the bare definition. It is explained that the definition because they preside over others. It is a simple and concise argument. The second passage brings to discussion the concept of "aristocratic successful. Though this argument leans more towards a spiritual and unchangeable truth about a certain individual, its conceptual analysis of the subject bears true to the first passage. Simply: those that are better will rule over those who are weaker in a social and economical sense in all situations.

These texts are from Tuesday's 12 o'clock group

Strength Training

How is strength represented in your culture?

It seems to me that strength in the american culture is represented not only physically, but by monetary wealth as well. People see hummers, and they associate the monstrosity with power, and the ability to convince others in whatever way that you are worth the money, and you are worth the pollution, and you are worth all the wasted oil, and you are worth the $3,000 gas-guzzler tax. It's all a game of who can bully whom, and none of it is worth a damn. American culture also favors the physical strength, but mostly because there are no Americans who run their lives like that, and none who are physically strong enough to a) conquer their emotional problems, or b) escape the effects of aging and life (i.e. sweat, hair in places it shouldn't be, no hair in places it should be, wrinkles, etc.). Our idealism in America has gotten to such a repulsive position wherein people who don't really look like they look are driving cars that shouldn't logically exist. And that for some reason denotes strength.

How is strength reprsented in Nietzsche?

When Nietzsche considers strength he is drawn to those with emotional strength. Those with the courage enough to realize that the world is full of suffering, but that if you let that knowledge keep you from doing the things you enjoy, life will never be fulfilled for you. In other words, Life's a bitch, but get used to it, because it's all we got.

As Gandhi says, “Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.”


E. Margret Gliozzo

creative project

Elizabeth

"Take a few decisions you have to make, and make them just the opposite of what your intuition tells you to. That is, I want you to consciously make the "wrong decision". It doesn't have to be about anything large, just try this experiment a couple of times. When the experiment is done, reread Frankenstein volume III, chapter 3 (Oxford edition pages 138-140). Report back to the blog "

So i read the pg 138-140 and it talks about how victor is having second thoughts about creating another monster. So I did make wrong decisions on purpose and I'm still alive. I started off small like listening to others' direction when I knew they were wrong. So I ended up being lost for a little bit but got back on track. I didn't feel bad about that decision because it was a nice walk and I had no particular event to go too. There was another time, when my instinct told me to not call a certain someone but I did. The person and I ended up in good terms. So what I learn is that, when I'm trying to make a decision, he could go right. Life is a gamble and even if I made the wrong ones, I should learn from it instead of beating myself up for it. Look on the bright side, I guess. It's still a long way to go but I guess it's all good.

Strength/Creative Project

I believe strength in our society to be someone who, even if they endure the hardest of times are still able to come out of it a better person. Life isn't easy and a person who has to deal with many obstacles in their life, learns from it and in the end it makes them a better person. There are so many people in this world who have had to battle horrible diseases such as cancer and have made it out alive. I think that that shows tremendous strength in a person.

I think that Nietzsche believes that a strong person is a person who is honest with themselves and keeps a realistic attitude in life. He also thinks that if we remove morality from our society then our society would be stronger and better. A strong person is someone who disregards the ideas of morality and just follows what they think is best for them.

For my creative project I am supposed to think about a future where I am stuck in the worst possible job and therefore the worst possible life. After thinking about that I am supposed to reread Frankenstein Volume III, chapter 3.
When thinking about the worst possible future, its hard to find any good in it. However, it could be that having the worst possible job and the worst possible living situation would help me in the future. I could learn how tough life is and that everything doesn't always go exactly as planned. It is a scary thought, but sometimes those tough situations end up working out in the end.

Yuta

For my creative project, I was supposed to follow a person for a larger part of the day and record everything I thought they were thinking during the day in real time.

I started to consider the people I thought would be fun to do this project with, and in the end I chose my floor mate Yuta. Super bowl Sunday was the day I picked to do this project, simply because he would be around all day. During the game, it was quite easy to predict what he was thinking and why he was thinking as such. But as the game went on, I found it harder and harder to figure out what he might be thinking, simply because I started to question myself if I was right. I didn’t want to write something down that could be right, but at the same time, I didn’t know if was wrong, I could be right. This turned into a complete mess and I started to become really confused. I wasn’t sure what to do anymore. I thought following someone for the day was going to be easy, and figuring out what they were thinking was going to be even easier, but I was wrong. Then it hit me!! The mind is something not to be messed with. I for one don’t understand myself or my thoughts for that matter, so why should I go around trying to figure out what someone else is thinking? Its just not fair.
I really don’t know where my creative project was supposed to take me, but this is what I learned from it. I first must learn to understand myself and my life, before I go and try to understand others.
Jimi