Jane Eyre- sometimes a difficult person to deal with being as stubborn as she is; Jane Eyre- often a difficult novel for me to read. I don’t know exactly what it was, but keeping up with the daily readings was a struggle for me. We discussed the importance of this 19th century novel written by Brontë and the unique style of writing utilized. To maximize the “effectiveness” and enjoyment of this novel, it required immersion, a slower pace, and the ability to listen attentively to conversation. This isn’t the type of novel made to be sped through. This is where I think it posed a problem for me. In our culture, speed has a higher market value. It’s hard to mesh this story with today’s culture in that regard. However, being imprisoned within a busy schedule, activities, and homework in all other classes, there’s no other way for me to read this novel other than in a restricted, limited time. I felt this sometimes led to me not enjoying the story as much as I could have.
As I was reading Jane Eyre, I noticed that it took me quite a while to read and digest everything. Part of that was me stopping and taking in major events and the other part was me just dozing off. Sometimes I would realize that I was staring at the same page for about 3 minutes, and had to bring myself back to experiencing Jane’s world. I have a feeling that this was because I tried too hard to speed through it. Mentally thinking about speeding through the novel actually made me read the story slower. It was difficult for me to focus when I tried to speed through it. Also, when I sped through I noticed quickly that I didn’t understand it as well and was forced to reread it again. A change I would make in the future is to adjust my reading style according to the novel. Next time when reading a novel similar to Jane Eyre, which requires a slower pace, I’m going to try and enjoy reading it slow, instead of try to blaze through it. I feel this way I will get more out of the story and I will understand it better.
What surprises me about my thinking is how easily distracted it can get. What I did like about my thinking as I read this novel (which didn’t develop until later) is how fluid it is. I wrote page summaries at the top of each page, but it was hard for me to stop at the end of each page and take a pause from reading. This was the time I was easily most distracted. Instead of disrupting the flow of the story, I waited until I finished the chapter, and then I went back and wrote page summaries. This also helped because I only noted the big observations that were still fresh in my mind. I would like to improve on my skills at reading dense material while using a slower pace to my advantage.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
360 Degrees: Justice
After reading Sophie’s World and learning about numerous philosophies that influence the workings of society, I truly find it interesting to find current philosophers discuss and explain their ideas. John Rawls, a James Bryant Conant University Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University from 1962-2002, did just that in his unique claims concerning justice. His most famous work is probably A Theory of Justice (and mainly what this blog will talk about) from 1971. I’ve done a little bit of reading on some of his work, and I find it confusing yet interesting as I’ve tried to digest it.
In the U.S., “justice” is a term thrown around without much thought given to its actual meaning. Schoolchildren across America say the Pledge of Allegiance concluding with the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” Justice is a concept that has been argued about by philosophers since the beginning of history. It’s often closely tied with the idea of fairness and has been connected with the idea of rationality. For example, the Supreme Court today is expected to rationally debate long and hard about the fairest course of action. The opposite of a just society is a tyrannical one. Justice and personal virtue (morality) are related, but unique ideas. I guess justice would be the morality that we agree upon as a society and make into laws.
Rawls has two main ideas that work hand in hand with each other: the original position and the veil of ignorance. Basically the “original position” is when representatives of people with limited information about the interests that they represent try to agree as to how society should be ordered. Rawls calls it the place in which everybody decides principles of justice from behind a “veil of ignorance.” All this is a hypothetical “thought experiment” designed to reflect what principles of justice would be present in a society based on free and fair cooperation between citizens.
The “veil of ignorance” that Rawls references on numerous accounts in his works basically blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what notion of justice is developed. This means from behind this veil, that person does not know the background or situation of his “client”. He negotiates blind. Rawls provides an example and says it’s method of determining the morality of a certain issue based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely redistributed (yes, high class to poverty, working class to billionaires, poor to working class) and from behind this “veil” you do not know what role you’ll be assigned. Decisions made from behind this veil would be more equal than decisions about society made from a starting point where we know our positions and our self interest.
Putting aside the complex “thought experiments” and the vocabulary, if you think about the theory, it makes sense, right? Many “just” things we do are performed based on ignorance. We individually pick lottery numbers to see what order we get to choose items, or what groups are formed. Any decision that is made visually and allows us to logically and rationally calculate automatically is influence by a notion of bias and favoritism.
So Rawls tries to achieve justice or a just society using this method, but does this realistically work? How does either justice or Rawls’ method take into account the basic flaws within human nature? Even if people are behind this “veil of ignorance”, I don’ think fairness can be attained because people will still make calculations about ANY principle based upon how THEY end up under it. Even if the method and “place” have changed, the person making the decision has not.
Furthermore, Rawls considers justice as THE most important thing in society calling it the “first virtue. Should justice be considered before all things? What about survival? Like discussed before, what constitutes justice is open to interpretation. This means that the term is vague. Is justice fairness? Fair according to whom? There will never be a unanimous answer as to what justice is, so can it be achieved. Should something unexplainably come before solid, visible facts? Let’s say there’s a violent student attending an elementary school and one day he brings a gun to school. The administration expels him from the school and denies education to him anywhere within the district. What is more important- the injustice of the student not being able to receive an education like every other child in America or the safety of the other children? When the federal government is implementing a government-run health care program, what’s more important- the advantage of helping economic recovery or being just by giving everyone access to health care? Justice is about equality. However, what if fair or equal distribution is impossible?
I am curious about how groups like the Supreme Court or others in the judicial field would respond to philosophies concerning justice. I’d like to think that justice can always be attained, and personally I try to be fair in all my actions, but is this a realistic way to carry out one’s life? What I see most important from this is the fact that this is something that require ALL of society to contemplate. It’s open to many different views, and justice itself should be formed by society as a whole. Philosophy is also important. It’s the main reason why I would even choose to willingly explore something like this I normally wouldn’t. It’s important in thinking about today’s world from a new angle.
In the U.S., “justice” is a term thrown around without much thought given to its actual meaning. Schoolchildren across America say the Pledge of Allegiance concluding with the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” Justice is a concept that has been argued about by philosophers since the beginning of history. It’s often closely tied with the idea of fairness and has been connected with the idea of rationality. For example, the Supreme Court today is expected to rationally debate long and hard about the fairest course of action. The opposite of a just society is a tyrannical one. Justice and personal virtue (morality) are related, but unique ideas. I guess justice would be the morality that we agree upon as a society and make into laws.
Rawls has two main ideas that work hand in hand with each other: the original position and the veil of ignorance. Basically the “original position” is when representatives of people with limited information about the interests that they represent try to agree as to how society should be ordered. Rawls calls it the place in which everybody decides principles of justice from behind a “veil of ignorance.” All this is a hypothetical “thought experiment” designed to reflect what principles of justice would be present in a society based on free and fair cooperation between citizens.
The “veil of ignorance” that Rawls references on numerous accounts in his works basically blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what notion of justice is developed. This means from behind this veil, that person does not know the background or situation of his “client”. He negotiates blind. Rawls provides an example and says it’s method of determining the morality of a certain issue based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely redistributed (yes, high class to poverty, working class to billionaires, poor to working class) and from behind this “veil” you do not know what role you’ll be assigned. Decisions made from behind this veil would be more equal than decisions about society made from a starting point where we know our positions and our self interest.
Putting aside the complex “thought experiments” and the vocabulary, if you think about the theory, it makes sense, right? Many “just” things we do are performed based on ignorance. We individually pick lottery numbers to see what order we get to choose items, or what groups are formed. Any decision that is made visually and allows us to logically and rationally calculate automatically is influence by a notion of bias and favoritism.
So Rawls tries to achieve justice or a just society using this method, but does this realistically work? How does either justice or Rawls’ method take into account the basic flaws within human nature? Even if people are behind this “veil of ignorance”, I don’ think fairness can be attained because people will still make calculations about ANY principle based upon how THEY end up under it. Even if the method and “place” have changed, the person making the decision has not.
Furthermore, Rawls considers justice as THE most important thing in society calling it the “first virtue. Should justice be considered before all things? What about survival? Like discussed before, what constitutes justice is open to interpretation. This means that the term is vague. Is justice fairness? Fair according to whom? There will never be a unanimous answer as to what justice is, so can it be achieved. Should something unexplainably come before solid, visible facts? Let’s say there’s a violent student attending an elementary school and one day he brings a gun to school. The administration expels him from the school and denies education to him anywhere within the district. What is more important- the injustice of the student not being able to receive an education like every other child in America or the safety of the other children? When the federal government is implementing a government-run health care program, what’s more important- the advantage of helping economic recovery or being just by giving everyone access to health care? Justice is about equality. However, what if fair or equal distribution is impossible?
I am curious about how groups like the Supreme Court or others in the judicial field would respond to philosophies concerning justice. I’d like to think that justice can always be attained, and personally I try to be fair in all my actions, but is this a realistic way to carry out one’s life? What I see most important from this is the fact that this is something that require ALL of society to contemplate. It’s open to many different views, and justice itself should be formed by society as a whole. Philosophy is also important. It’s the main reason why I would even choose to willingly explore something like this I normally wouldn’t. It’s important in thinking about today’s world from a new angle.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
An Inconvenient Truth: Fate Does Not Exist
Some see events in their life pre-determined and already laid out for them without their knowledge. They believe in going to fortune tellers and such and believe in hearing their future because if events are already set in stone beforehand then it’s possible to foresee them. Others completely reject this idea of fate. Life is a random series of events put together. What I choose to do here wasn’t predicted beforehand; I could have chosen something else. Actions are “in-the-moment” events and can never be foreseen. The idea that challenges my understanding is the claim that fate doesn’t exist at all. The point that I want to make is not that fate determines everything, but more so that it is present in life. Maybe not in every aspect of life, but it exists. It bothers me a little when fate is completely denied from existing in life’s framework. Things that can’t be fully explained-the situation you were born into, the talents given to you- should be credited to fate. These strokes of luck, chance, or whatever other name it can be labeled fit better in fate’s framework. Everything happens for a reason.
In my opinion, fate is the part of life you can’t control. Fate is nature: it is what determines your physical makeup, your parents, your home, your chemical composition. It’s also the random things surrounding you that you have no say in, like weather, and other people’s actions. I’d probably agree with the statement that our lives are directed by a mix of free will and fate, but fate certainly exists. The core themes in our lives are given to us by fate: personality, health, and our situation. Free will guides the decisions we make. Relationships between people- probably a mix between the two. On one hand, relationships involve your free will, the other person’s free will, and the interaction between those free wills. However, the actual mesh of the interaction- the way people’s personalities and actions blend, and all the chemical twists and turns that determine the ultimate state of the relationship- are in fate’s hands.
I think the way fate and free will coexist is that fate gives us starting points throughout our life. From there, free will takes us wherever we please and that part yields many different paths in your life. Those who wait for fate to deliver everything to them will achieve far less than they desire. Relying on fate alone would work against the extraordinary happenings in life. If fate is our starting point, then we’d keep the friends we met in elementary school and make few new ones along the way. We’d enter careers that fit our earliest interests without thinking much of what else we’d like to explore. We’d grow up in the house we were born in, and then move to the next logical place based on outside influences. Few extraordinary events would happen.
It’s those extraordinary things- acts of free will that upset the normal, passive flow of life- that makes our lives exciting and worth living. Big or small, these acts change our lives- forcing yourself to go to a social outing that you feel uncomfortable about or challenging a deep fear. If you think about all the places you could have been raised in, all the people you could have met, and all the career paths you could possibly be driven towards, a balance of fate and free will are at work.
To be able to come to terms with this idea, the best way is to give everyone the freedom of their own belief. All I can do is lead my own life thinking that every gift I have and will receive has its own reason, and I should act thinking about its purpose in mind. Maybe others will experience an event in life down the road that will convince them in the direction of fate.
Fate exists but so does the “randomness.” We are dealt fate, but from that there are many different lives we can live- many choices and many outcomes.
In my opinion, fate is the part of life you can’t control. Fate is nature: it is what determines your physical makeup, your parents, your home, your chemical composition. It’s also the random things surrounding you that you have no say in, like weather, and other people’s actions. I’d probably agree with the statement that our lives are directed by a mix of free will and fate, but fate certainly exists. The core themes in our lives are given to us by fate: personality, health, and our situation. Free will guides the decisions we make. Relationships between people- probably a mix between the two. On one hand, relationships involve your free will, the other person’s free will, and the interaction between those free wills. However, the actual mesh of the interaction- the way people’s personalities and actions blend, and all the chemical twists and turns that determine the ultimate state of the relationship- are in fate’s hands.
I think the way fate and free will coexist is that fate gives us starting points throughout our life. From there, free will takes us wherever we please and that part yields many different paths in your life. Those who wait for fate to deliver everything to them will achieve far less than they desire. Relying on fate alone would work against the extraordinary happenings in life. If fate is our starting point, then we’d keep the friends we met in elementary school and make few new ones along the way. We’d enter careers that fit our earliest interests without thinking much of what else we’d like to explore. We’d grow up in the house we were born in, and then move to the next logical place based on outside influences. Few extraordinary events would happen.
It’s those extraordinary things- acts of free will that upset the normal, passive flow of life- that makes our lives exciting and worth living. Big or small, these acts change our lives- forcing yourself to go to a social outing that you feel uncomfortable about or challenging a deep fear. If you think about all the places you could have been raised in, all the people you could have met, and all the career paths you could possibly be driven towards, a balance of fate and free will are at work.
To be able to come to terms with this idea, the best way is to give everyone the freedom of their own belief. All I can do is lead my own life thinking that every gift I have and will receive has its own reason, and I should act thinking about its purpose in mind. Maybe others will experience an event in life down the road that will convince them in the direction of fate.
Fate exists but so does the “randomness.” We are dealt fate, but from that there are many different lives we can live- many choices and many outcomes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
