April/may blog last one!

We talked about nihilism, absurdism and other ideas regarding meaning given to life. I don't think that any one school of thought is right but I do subscribe to the general idea of existentialism and its varieties. More specifically I believe in Nihilism as the idea that meaning is derived from pleasure and whatever makes you happy.  I think that while the majority of society will attempt to shy away from existentialist philosophies in general, people will subconsciously or at least apply on or more of the schools of thought. I think that the key difference is that people will not go through the crisis aspect. This has its benefits: no suffering through the stress placed on you through the existential crisis . It also has its drawbacks: no conscious knowledge of the decision you made and the process behind it.
We talked about brain in a jar this month also. I find this particularly interesting because you see  an idea that appears so bizarre to us, but maybe that is only because a preset in this pseudo simulation is for that to seem preposterous. Also the idea that it is virtually impossible to prove unless the people(s) playing God give us a hint. This also ties into the idea of, how do we now our memories are even real? There is no real way to argue for this without being shutdown by "you have just been placed here programmed with memories in this prepared environment." The idea that everything is in your head is terrifying and seems easy to disprove but that is not the case.

the seven deadly sins and compatibility with humans

I, like many other people think that the seven deadly sins are extremely interesting. What I believe to be the most intriguing part is the personification and projection of evil in its purest projected into human form. The concept of pure evil/sin being compatible with human is interesting as it states that we as humans are capable of being purely, lustful, wrathful, prideful, greedy, envious, gluttonous, and sloth. I don't think that this is truthful and believe that no human can possibly be completely consumed by (a) sin. That isn't to say that humans can't be consumed by any combination of these sins only that they can't be consumed by 1. The most likely combinations and combinations that are regularly seen are a) greed, gluttony, and lust b) pride, envy and wrath c) envy, sloth, and gluttony. I know that I am rather prideful and wrathful. Also if everyone were to look inside and attempt to determine what sins they were consumed by everyone would find something, including you mrs.Burnett :), and while I don't think that this is a negative thing I don't think its a negative thing either. While none of them really benefit society they are all aspects of human nature and we have all grown to live and cope with them. I think that the reason that lucifer brought up the seven deadly sins was because he knew that faustus would a) recognize that these seven sins were inside everyone and then would feel less guilty about giving into his pleasure and ins which are pride and lust primarily. b) lucifer craves the ability to give into his darker pleasures and seeing it in its purest form will push him to chase it.

In conclusion the seven deadly sins are a part of human nature and as such have been coped with and supressed by humanity even though everyone has their demons.

I would like to talk about a couple of things. First in The Love Story of Alfred J. Prufrock Prufrock struggles to understand what he will do and the consequences of said actions. As a seemingly weak and frail middle aged man he seems to think that every action he makes will change the universe in some way or another and in turn would all cole back to him. Prufrock was also overly worried about his social status and even just his one on one interactions and relations with other people. Noting these it becomes apparent that Prufrock is less of a modern hero and more of a person who is undergoing an existential crisis , a person who also has crippling anxiety mcuh like many individuals of today. I talked about this in my socratic seminar for this book. Prufrock is much more similar to Estragon and Vladmir compared to Okonkwo. I also stated that this would explain why it does not seem as enjoyable as many other heroes or specifically other modern heroes.
The other topic that I would like to discuss is Okonkwos suicide. This moment struck me as a moment of strength and weakness depending on how you look at it. From the strength aspect you see a resilience and feverent devotion to his culture and will hold his ideals until the bitter end. That takes immense amounts of courage and strength to be that dedicated to a cause or culture. On the other way to describe it would be as the moment that Okonkwo gave up. Okonkwo could be decribed as having no strength or ability left to continue his struggle against the new western culture that was overtaking that he so strongly believed in. There was a point (his suicide or the moment that he decided to kill hinself) where he decided that the fight was no longer worth it. That was when Okonkwo lost his strength and deserted some of the cultures and his most important ideals such as courage.
Lastly I would like to discuss a character in the extended Star Wars universe who goes by the name of Darth Revan. One of the reasons I bring Darth Revan up is because of his ability to be called a tragic hero. Originally a Sith lord Revan suffered serious amnesia and when he came around persued the life of a Jedi. His fatal flaw was his desire for power and total control over other Sith and the entire Galaxy. This flaw seems to be very prevalent among many individuals of society and has caused many issues. While the relapse post-amnesia can't be related to individuals in society the reason can, one thing many politicians seem to be persuing is reelection more than the mantle of responsibility of running the country, state, etc.  Revan has a revelation about himself and sets out to pursue his goals with only a mastery of himself and the force. He seeks to change the universe and bend it all to his will. This is the exact opposite of what Prufrock wishes to do.

What is a hero? Some define a hero by his merit, how he acts and leads his personal life, many think that being a hero depends on ones character and merit. While this question is very abstract and does not really have an answer, I would like to speak on it. In my belief a hero is someone who acts. Someone who acts in a way that benefits humanity or the society that they are part of. A hero identifies with a cause and will fight for it. While this is just my opinion it is a very broad definition and encompasses many individuals whom many people would not consider a hero and possibly even a villain. As an American one person who this definition would encompass would be Adolf Hitler. Though I am sure that I would believe that he was a hero if I was a member of Nazi Germany, this still supports my definition of a Hero as the way that one society views him, or the society that he identifies with. This definition of a hero is much more of a case by case basis and is defined by the person and the values of the culture that they live in. I would also like to relate this to the story Grendel that we read.  While this can be contradictory and often is when different heroes are pitted against each other, one becomes a villain for one and vice versa. In Grendel, the monster/villain is necessary for the hero and for a complex to society, this can be related out to say that heroes are villains and villains are heroes if you look objectively at the situation with an understanding of both societies. The definition of hero is extremely objective but is defined much more by the actions of someone compared to the characteristics and intentions of someone. Every definition of the hero has to have some degree of ambiguity as even the most general of definitions are bound to have flaws which in the end makes heros a very case by case and personal choice.