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.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
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.
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
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
Thursday, May 5, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)