POST IN PROGRESS!!!
-Current events, article from newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc., summarize AND REFLECT, movies, television shows, songs, best-selling books, u-tube videos, etc.
-Offer specific examples AND REFLECTS how they relate to my big question.
Current events - good deeds for community v war
Movies - (Reality movies? Or just usual Hollywood type movies?)
Songs - Gospel v Eminem
Books -
Friday, February 6, 2009
How do the books "East of Eden", "The Stranger", and "The Magus" relate to my BIG QUESTION, are humans inherintly good or evil?
East of Eden by John Steinbeck - (See paragraph in first post about my big question. More symbols and themes to follow, but I read it over the summer and my books begin to run together! :D )
The Stranger by Albert Camus - In the book The Stranger, the reader struggles in determining not whether the main character is good or evil, but whether he has a conscience! Does he have a moral compass that tell him what are and are not acceptable actions in life. And although this may seem to argue that humans are evil by nature, he is "the stranger", a mutant from the norm of society and the what most people are like. Also, if this poor man is born without a conscience (which I do not believe because by the end he begins to realize what a good life he had and how he would have began to live it had he not been sentenced to death) than that would not make him evil; a child born deaf does not make them rude when they don't answer you when you call to them.
(Notes and annotations in my composition book and novel will also help with elaborating more on this paragraph for the paper.)
The Magus by John Fowles - In the book The Magus, the end of the novel proves good intentions from the "teacher" Maurice Conchis, but a good intention may or may not justify the means; that would be the argument for this paragraph because his actions, and those he forces his actors to perform, are sometimes very controversial and cause the reader to ask if he is a morally good person under all his facades and lies. Also, it questions the morality (does morality = good?) of the actors and even of the main character Nicholas because of his reactions to what is happening to him and his decision at the end when he is finally asked to judge them for all his humiliation.
(And again, MANY MANY annotations in my novel about this question.)
(Thinking about adding Crime and Punishment instead of The Magus with obvious good v bad debates.)
The Stranger by Albert Camus - In the book The Stranger, the reader struggles in determining not whether the main character is good or evil, but whether he has a conscience! Does he have a moral compass that tell him what are and are not acceptable actions in life. And although this may seem to argue that humans are evil by nature, he is "the stranger", a mutant from the norm of society and the what most people are like. Also, if this poor man is born without a conscience (which I do not believe because by the end he begins to realize what a good life he had and how he would have began to live it had he not been sentenced to death) than that would not make him evil; a child born deaf does not make them rude when they don't answer you when you call to them.
(Notes and annotations in my composition book and novel will also help with elaborating more on this paragraph for the paper.)
The Magus by John Fowles - In the book The Magus, the end of the novel proves good intentions from the "teacher" Maurice Conchis, but a good intention may or may not justify the means; that would be the argument for this paragraph because his actions, and those he forces his actors to perform, are sometimes very controversial and cause the reader to ask if he is a morally good person under all his facades and lies. Also, it questions the morality (does morality = good?) of the actors and even of the main character Nicholas because of his reactions to what is happening to him and his decision at the end when he is finally asked to judge them for all his humiliation.
(And again, MANY MANY annotations in my novel about this question.)
(Thinking about adding Crime and Punishment instead of The Magus with obvious good v bad debates.)
Is humankind inherintly good or evil? - New Reflections
I can't remember when the first time is that I ever asked myself this question, if ever...actually, I can't recollect having ever wondered about it. It's an interesting question and one that I don't believe we as humans could ever come to a definite answer about, but I think my answer will always be the same. The battle between good and evil within our bodies is a great one, and I would like the chance, through literature, to prove that humans are neither. As I stated in my first post about the good and evil within us, I don't believe there can be a force of nature that forces us to be good or evil, but rather we all have a little of both...there is a large grey area that better describes the inherent nature of humans.
Ironically, through no pre-planning, most of the books I have read this year have dealt with the question of whether people are good or evil (East of Eden, The Stranger...twice, Crime and Punishment, The Magus, Oedipus Rex...) and I believe it's a huge question that many author's are simultaneously attempting to answer.
Ironically, through no pre-planning, most of the books I have read this year have dealt with the question of whether people are good or evil (East of Eden, The Stranger...twice, Crime and Punishment, The Magus, Oedipus Rex...) and I believe it's a huge question that many author's are simultaneously attempting to answer.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
In a modern world, is there such thing as a reliable authority? If so, who or what?
There can never be completely reliable authority. Regardless of who or what the authority is, because humans are neither completely good nor evil, there will be those who choose to be reliable as well as those who choose to be unreliable. The best we can hope for is for more who wish to choose to be reliable will make the majority of the authoritarian figures, rather than those who wish not to be, who will then punish those of us who find ourselves in times of need and need dependable and trustworthy authority.
How Does "Crime and Punishment" address my BIG QUESTION?
Crime and Punishment illustrates my question, are humans inherently good or evil through Raskolnikov's struggle of whether or not to turn himself in for his crime and the illnesses he obtains from his stress and worry of wondering if he is yet been found out. It seems as though he would he would be evil because of his murders, but his conscience drags him down so much through the great amount of guilt he feels, that it makes one look again and wonder if maybe the murder just happened, and he is not really evil. But if this is true, he still cannot be good!
Also, Crime and Punishment relates to my question in the same way as my independent study novel, East of Eden. They both have various characters all along the good vs. evil spectrum, allowing for much philosophical discussion over the question, but never allowing one to come to a clear answer.
Also, Crime and Punishment relates to my question in the same way as my independent study novel, East of Eden. They both have various characters all along the good vs. evil spectrum, allowing for much philosophical discussion over the question, but never allowing one to come to a clear answer.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Is humankind inherently good or evil?
If humans were inherently good there would be no reason for a perfect god, right? But if they were inherently evil, there would be no search for a god at all… A demon does not search for a way to better his ways, he could care less because he likes that he is evil. This question of whether humans are naturally good or evil is a timeless one that has been continuously grappled with, always to no avail. But inherent does not mean exclusive…can’t there be a gray area? If humans were exclusively good or evil, who would know? Who would care? Philosophical questions such as this only come about because of the comparison of the two; you cannot know one is good without knowing what evil is and vice versa. Can some be born good or evil? Can others choose their own side? Can more still never choose, but continuously bunny hop the invisible divide between the two? Something to ponder: children are selfish by nature, they must be taught to share rather than resort to survival of the fittest methods (stealing); does this mean they are born evil? Are things evil by action or simply from intent?
My independent study novel, East of Eden by John Steinbeck, epitomizes this question absolutely with its struggle of two brothers and their reenactment of Cain and Abel and the first murder. Then there is also Cathy, who throughout the whole novel proves she has had no soul since birth, and will never even attempt to obtain one. Is she an abnormality in society, or simply an extreme case? But then Samuel is so wholly good and has not an evil bone in his body it seems. Where can such two extremes fit on the same scale? And between the opposing poles, of course, the many remaining characters fit in varying degrees.
In Oedipus, the argument can be made that Oedipus himself is inherently evil, for if he was not, he would not have killed that man on the road, though he did not know who he was, and would not have suffered the resulting consequences. But instead, the Sphinx knew he would kill this man, not knowing it to be his father, and in turn marry his mother.
IS HUMANKIND INHERENTLY GOOD OR EVIL?
My independent study novel, East of Eden by John Steinbeck, epitomizes this question absolutely with its struggle of two brothers and their reenactment of Cain and Abel and the first murder. Then there is also Cathy, who throughout the whole novel proves she has had no soul since birth, and will never even attempt to obtain one. Is she an abnormality in society, or simply an extreme case? But then Samuel is so wholly good and has not an evil bone in his body it seems. Where can such two extremes fit on the same scale? And between the opposing poles, of course, the many remaining characters fit in varying degrees.
In Oedipus, the argument can be made that Oedipus himself is inherently evil, for if he was not, he would not have killed that man on the road, though he did not know who he was, and would not have suffered the resulting consequences. But instead, the Sphinx knew he would kill this man, not knowing it to be his father, and in turn marry his mother.
IS HUMANKIND INHERENTLY GOOD OR EVIL?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)