Final Blogpost

I'm answering the questions in order in which they were asked on Ms Rear's blog

* I learned that I think about my book way more than I thought I did. While I read I don't think about all the ideas in the moment but when I sit down at home to do these post it all comes to me at once. Also, I learned that if I actually cared for the book I was reading my blogs turned out way lengthier and overall better.
*I benefited from the experience by getting feedback on thoughts that I've had on books. For example, the feedback I got when I read  A Clockwork Orange really changed my thinking which I think is a good thing. Also, it got me to read almost everyday which is a pretty good thing to do.
*Writing online is a little different from a notebook. For the most part, it's kind of public. Meaning all of my classmates can read this so some people might be more personal in their notebooks than on our blogs. Also when writing online I think we might get a little more put out into our blogs. I personally write faster and more on the computer so I might write more than if I did in a notebook.
*Writing online can be liberating because our classmates can have conversations or sometimes even arguments on these blogs. Even if it's an argument, it can come out productive for someone who wants to go deeper into thinking. Also you can read other people's blogs which can widen your thinking as well. It's limiting in a way I said above. You can't go as personal on blogs since everyone can see them, when in notebooks you can write to your heart's desire.
*I think it can go both ways. Obviously online people can say things they might be too embarrassed or scared to say in real life so it might be different from a person's actual personality. It can work the other way too. Maybe the person writing online is the real "them". Being online makes a wall between everybody so nothing can hurt them, so I think overall people might a be little more "real" online than in person.
*Of course sites like facebook is abused for stuff like that. People can say stuff they would never ever say in real life in the comfort of their own home. I don't think this freedom should be limited, but it is definitely a deal of questioning your acts if you are the person writing terrible things. Although writing bad things online can be hurtful, it does give people a way to express their feelings if they don't choose to do it in person. Sometimes being online is easier. So I think it's bad to do, but shouldn't be taken away.
*Honestly I don't think I will keep up with this blog. I do not enjoy writing the actual posts but I must admit it gets my thinking going. I will definitely keep reading and thinking but keeping up with a blog is just not another thing I want to be doing. If I were going to keep up with another blog it would be on basic things that I like or that interest me. Blogs in general I think are a good thing for some people, because it gets out what they think or interests them so everyone can see it without actually meeting or talking to the person. It might be weird, but it's a good way of expressing yourself if you're into it.

The Communist Manifesto

There are lots and lots to talk about this book so I have to keep it a bit brief right now. One of things I've been thinking about it the list of things that Communists believe would make the most advanced society. Basically to establish a Communist society you have to abolish all that will make things unbalanced. Meaning everything has to be equal. One of the more specific rules is the abolishment of private property.

Abolishing private property. This means everything is public. I don't quite understand how that would work. In fact, it sounds completely ridiculous. Communism in general is a good thought but when you get down to how you would actually make it, it just sounds plain ridiculous. Without private property we couldn't own anything ourselves. Basically whatever's your's is mine. It's equal, but it's sure not fun for me or anyone for that matter. Communism is not about that though. It's about the productiveness of the class. Although some believe it may be productive as a whole, what's the point when you can't enjoy the good stuff in life, like owning your own house or even buying yourself something for you. There are other things needed to abolish to establish communism. I wont list them right now, but trust me. Some of those things you definitely want.

The Book Thief

I'm only 49 pages into this book, The Book Thief by Markus Zusak and the clever writing has already dragged me in. The use of Death as the narrator is such a cool idea. I'm surprised I haven't read other books like that. But enough of that.

The Book Thief is about a little girl who was sent to foster parents in Nazi Germany. So far she just has been adjusting to her new family and displaying the weird and sometimes comical accustoms to her new life.With Death narrating it, sometimes parts of the story are in strange places, and it makes me think they were put there for a reason. I'm not too far into so I don't have much to say, but I have noticed some things within the 49 pages I have read so far. One thing is, does it matter the way you express your love, if you have it? In the book Death has a little note saying that Liesel's (the girl) new mother actually loves her, she just has a strange way of showing it. That way being her cursing at the top of her lungs and making her clean up spit from the houses fence.

In real life people have many ways of showing love.  Kissing, hugging, talking, and of course the famous brotherly love I share with mine; punching and painfully harassing each other. I mean, we know it's love right? So why does it matter how we express it? Obviously as normal human beings, we don't like hurting or being hurt, but what if it's a way of expressing love? At first glance I would definitely say it matters. There are countless ways of showing love, but that doesn't mean it's good. For example, an insane person could have an obsession with me. They could kill me and wear my skin as an expression of love, and I don't think I have to tell you that's not good.

Going back to the book, Liesel's new mother supposedly loves her. She is a bit strict and foul, but her love isn't expressed in an overly horrific way. Who knows, she could be doing it to teach her a lesson? Well, the people who have read the book might know. She might just be a mean person. But anyway, as of right now, love is love and the way you express it counts too. Although you should still be grateful you have it.

Shakespeare Response

I recently have read Hamlet and Macbeth by William Shakespeare. I really enjoyed reading them, especially now that I can understand them better than I did the previous year. But there is one very important thing I noticed. Earlier in our philosophy unit we discussed a long list that included Communitarianism, Nihilism, and much more. Though there is one that I thought was really interesting. After reading Hamlet I decided to do research on Existentialism. And what I found was that Jean- Paul Sarte and others, who adopted Existentialism led an exact reference to one of Hamlet's speeches by Shakespeare. I looked this up to see if this has been discussed and it has, but I still think it's very interesting.

Anyway, the speech I'm talking about, that of course it extremely famous is the "To be or not to be" speech. The thought that humans choices are all from themselves demonstrates itself in this speech. As Hamlet struggles with the decision to kill his uncle but feels burdened by the fact that he was chosen for the murder. So basically Hamlet must make a decision that was forced onto him. Being the idea of Existentialism is that we make our own choice and it's always us, never a higher being (God). So perhaps great Existentialists like Sarte might have adapted this meaning into their thoughts.

I just thought it was a cool comparison and coincidence that we were studying it and I was reading Hamlet at the same time.

Blogpost Re-edit. Heroes

To were I'm at in the story (I watched a little more) I think the real, honest question for me is what is a "hero". Obviously you can call someone like Superman and Spiderman a hero, but in this text conflict comes up making me think that a super powers isn't what makes you the hero. That's what I want to know. What literally makes you a hero. 

In the text Hiro says to his friend that they are gonna save the world and be heroes. His friend replies saying that he's not a hero, he doesn't have super powers. My first impression is that he's wrong. You don't need super powers to be a hero, you just need to help people and make the world a better place. But I keep thinking that there's something deeper than just doing something good, but I don't know what. 

In the real world people like firemen, and police officers are sometimes called heroes, but for what? They're just doing there everyday job, which is no special than anyone else. What gives them the label of "hero"? But does being a hero really mean you have to be special or different. I think it's true. Being a hero means doing something special, different, or out of the ordinary for good. I'm not saying that firemen and Police officers aren't brave or good. I'm just saying that I don't think they deserve the title, "hero". 

In the text DL and Hiro use their powers to help a lady who's trapped in a burning car that's about to explode. Micah calls them heroes but DL tells him that he's not. Actually I think DL is wrong about himself. I'm not completely sure but most of what he did fits what I think a hero would be. He did something special, out of the ordinary, and did something for good. The last part of being a hero I was thinking about is, the real reason the actual so called "hero" did what they did. For the last part of what I think a hero is, is the reason you did what you did has to truly be to help someone, or something. Not just for fame or to impress people, but just to really try to make a difference. 

The thing is I don't know if my formula for being a hero is completely true. Someone in the FBI or CIA could do something special or out of the ordinary. They could also being doing it truly for good. But personally I still don't think people like that, are "heroes". But I think I could be wrong. A hero to one person can be a villain to another. 

When Micah called DL a hero for saving the lady, he really thought that he was a hero. He believed it. He individually believed it. So to Micah, DL was the hero, but to someone else DL could have been a villain. So maybe a hero doesn't account for everyone. That means that a hero doesn't technically have to do good. 

Now I'm thinking a hero isn't always someone who saves somebody, or changes the world. It's who changes you. People are always saying how someone like Kanye West is their hero. He might not be my hero, but he's the hero of that specific person. A hero is whoever you want it to be, as long as it changed you in anyway. It's not even about what the characteristics of a hero is. It's about who a "hero" is to you. 

After watching the first season of heroes, for now, I know what a hero is. A hero is someone or something that changes you in anyway, and "you" have to label that someone or something a hero. No one else can tell you what a hero is. No matter how good or bad someone is, everyone can be a hero.


This was from a very long time ago that I found and I felt it would count if I re-did it

Finally finished the series

You might have not known this but it has taken me over 3 years to read all of the Harry Potter books. Not because I slowly read them. But because I quit half way through for most of them. And that's exactly what I did with this last one. But now I finally finished! Hooray! So anyway, one of the things I've been thinking about it actually quite relevant to what we are doing in classwork. In our Socrates Cafe groups, my group chose the topic of Communitarianism. I think this completely relates to Harry Potter. If you don't know Communitarianism is the philosophy that the group is more important than the individual.

I disagree with the communitarianism statement fro some good reasons but I wont get into that right now. What is confusing is it's hard not agree with it in Harry Potter's situation. (Spoiler Alert!) Near the end of the last book Harry chooses to actually sacrifice himself for the life of others (which he does but soon comes back to life). The difference is that this time and the other books is that he actually let himself die. He didn't risk his life. He actually went up to Voldemort to be killed. Now this is an example of communitarianism because the group is more important than the individual ( Harry Potter).

Even though I disagree with communitarianism how can you not agree with what he did? He basically killed himself for the life of millions.  Now in the real world I'm pretty sure this situation doesn't happen that often. But it completely reverses my disagreement. How can I agree and disagree. Agree to disagree? Can it be in between? Please tell me.

another blog post alright

Honestly the last book I started to read was the hunger games which I have read before. I did a blog post on it, but I do not want to write about it again. I stopped reading it and I haven't started a new book yet. So I really don't know what to do. The most recent thing I have read that is close to fiction since rereading part of the hunger games was this short story about a guy trying to find OFWGKTA member, Earl Sweatshirt. OFWGKTA is relatively new rap group that has just started their rise to fame. A member of the group, Earl Sweatshirt at age 17 disappeared and no one knew where he was except the rest of the rap group. Now people know, but this was a short fictional story about finding Earl that I can try to write a decent blog post about.

One topic brought up in this story is the comical use of political figures and leads me to other thoughts. In this case it would be music. I do not remember who it was they were making fun of, but I do remember parts of the story. So basically what happened is Earl is captured by the political figure that he made fun of in one of his songs. This makes me think about how far the extent of the freedom of speech can go. For example you can't say a selection of cuss words on public television. I think think this completely defeats the purpose of freedom of speech. Where ever you are, you can say what ever you want. You may be charged with disturbing the peace, or charged for threatening if you use it in the wrong way. But in general, public television is definitely one of the places freedom of speech should kick in.

Why? Because the United States of America was and is a place of freedom. People in other countries can be executed for speaking out. America promised our immigrant ancestors who came to this country freedoms. And one of those freedom was the freedom of speech. The U.S is not most stable country in the world, but some of our freedoms is a reason to be proud of our country.

I do admit that cusses on television have eased up a bit. I remember when they couldn't say the S word on television and I hear it all the time on comedy central. Another topic that can be brought up is movies. Movies are different because they have ratings on them. You must meet the required age for the rating to see the movie. That is a whole other discussion, but what I'm talking about plays a role in movies too.

Sorry I couldn't write about a book exactly. Next time I promise I will.