Being Peace
I think that this means that people no longer know themselves. With television computers and other technologies we don’t have to be in touch with ourselves. We would rather give into our desires than look into ourselves for happiness. This may be because material objects are more tangible and guarantied. There is no guaranty that we will find happiness within ourselves. While I agree with a lot of this, I also think that we may not know that looking within ourselves is an option. Otherwise I think a lot more people would learn to stay in touch with themselves.
I agree with this statement. As long as people respect their own lives and the lives of others, they are living a mostly peaceful life. Once you have this respect you already know and practice what most religions teach, love and affection. There are still some life styles and philosophies that can be taught by a church that have less to do with love and affection. One example from the Catholic Church is that our actions have consequences in life, and more importantly the after life, but this depends on an individual's personal belief.
I would say that I am most successful in practicing the second mindfulness training. This is because I keep my religious believes open. I often question religions, especially my own. Whenever I learn about a new philosophy or religious ideas, I analyze it to myself and decide whether or not it is a believe that I share, or think is right. This way I create best believe system for me, and is a combination of many religions.
The training that I may follow the least could be the 7th. Whenever I am in a happy moment I feel happy, however I do dwell in the depressing moments as well. I find it difficult to get out of depressing mindsets, therefore in a moment of depression I will stay depressed for a while. I always come out of these depressions, but if I were to learn how to dwell in happiness, perhaps I could feel suffering less and happiness even more.
Pre-life
There is no after life, only a post-life. If you are reading this you are most likely living in the prer-life. You probably also believe when you die you will go to heaven, or that your consciousness will simply cease to be. Either way, you probably have accepted life is filled with suffering. Therefore, almost all of man believes or hopes that whatever comes after life (or what they think is life), is better than what we have on earth. We are wrong.
The truth is terrifying. When a man dies (or in reality he is born), he is beyond despondent to find not only was he living in a post-life, but also that life in reality is hell. To understand how horrifying life is you fist must understand that, as far as we know, the post-life is as close to heaven as possible. Life itself is only pain and suffering, and it never ends. There is no interaction between people, yet people live in this world together. No one ever makes eye contact with each other, nor do they ever speak. They are only able to watch each other’s pain while experiencing unimaginable pain themselves. The only noises that can be heard are the sobs of others. The only things that can be seen are terrifying and unimaginable images of torcher and agony, or depressing landscape. There is a consistent smell of sulfur hanging in the air.
Life is humankind’s punishment for being the sinful creatures that we are. The post-life was once simply all there was. Man lived for eternity on earth. They all shared pain, but they also felt happiness as well. Soon we began to feel the need for more happiness. Some succeeded, but because there was only so much happiness in the world other nations were poverty stricken. As a result death was introduced to the Earth and we now are forced to live in this hell know as life.
Although there is little of it, there is something that creates life from being complete torcher, hope. This hope comes from the possibility that one day a human will live a perfect life in the post-life. If this human can change the world by once again creating equality and happiness throughout the earth, we can once again live peacefully on earth. The world after the post-life will discontinue for as long as we can maintain peace on earth. For now we are certain that we are destined to live here until then. What we are not certain of is if we ever walk live in the post-life once again what will there be after death?
Dulce Seminar Reflection
One of the opinions expressed in the seminar was that poetry gives a better perspective of war than any other form of writing or. I think that the most powerful and effective way of presenting is through film. Film is a visual recording of what actually happened. There is nothing left to be interpreted by the viewer, so there are few misconceptions of what the particular war is like. In the documentary about the history of the Rwandan genocide, I could see exactly what went on and I could not interpret in any other way other than what I could see.
I learned poetry is often expressed entirely through metaphor. Many times, what the poem may seem to be at first is not what is at second glance. For example the poem about plumes seemed completely innocent at first, but the entire poem changed when making a deeper analysis. When I discovered that poem could have something to do with sex, I discovered that it could be about rape, which turned out to be a common interpretation. In the Dulce poem, the author used metaphor to describe the horrors of war. For example the line, “As under a green sea, I saw him drowning,” is a metaphor used to describe the death of a fellow soldier that he had witnessed.
I believe that it is only sweet and right to die for your country, but you must be willing to do so. In many cases when people are drafted to war, but are not willing to fight or die, there deaths are often for no reason. In my opinion to die unhappily or under circumstances that you are not happy with, is almost like living an unhappy moment, because for me the final moment of life are some of the most important. These moments are usually spent trying to be able to die happily with the way you’ve spent your life. However if your life is spent fighting and killing a cause that you do not believe in, is no way to die.
Omelas Seminar Reflection
In the seminar we discussed which society was had a better morality, our own or the city of Omelas. One opinion was that they were both equally moral. I agree with this because both societies people are suffering. In Omelas the child in the closet is abandoned. Even those who walk away don’t help the child, even though they left because of their guilt for making the child suffer. In our own society there are many people who suffer and we spend little time to help these people. Many of us never spend any time or money to help those in need. In this way neither of our societies are more moral that the other.
I found that one aspect of this story was very similar to Anthem by Ayn Rand. In Anthem two characters realized the flaw with there society and decided to leave. They lived in the mountains until they found an abandoned house. The people who walked away from Omelas also found a flaw with their society and decided it was best to leave, rather than live with the knowledge the suffering child. Both of these stories give the message that we should walk away from what we think is wrong. These two stories are also dystopian societies. In Anthem the community is taught to that there is no independence in attempt to create a perfect community, but in the mind of the protagonist it is flawed. In Omelas it is a perfect society other than the child in the closet. These flaws are what make both stories dystopian.
I think that the main message the author tries to send about happiness is that we cannot experience happiness without some sort of price to pay. In this story, that price was the misery of the child in the broom closet. It is seemed to me like the young kid carried the Burdon of enduring all the pain in the community so no one else had to experience suffering. However, the child did not absorb all the suffering. Some of the citizens who saw the child felt guilt and were had to leave Omelas. I believe that this represents happiness in our own society. We have people suffering in “broom closets,” people who live comfortably like those in Omelas, and also people who don’t except our society. I don’t necessarily believe this, because I think that the citizens could give the child a happy life and live happily themselves as well. In a real life example, many people give a lot of time in effort to those in need and still live happy lives. We don’t need money and material objects to make us happy.
There are many examples in our society that fit the allegory of the story. First of all, there are homeless people in our own country who carry the burden of much of our suffering. If these people had homes, their money would need to come from someone with wealth. Like I said earlier, I don’t think this necessarily means less happiness for the wealthy, but this is part of the message I got from the story. Also, in our society there are people who do not accept it and decide to walk away. In the book, Into The Wild, the protagonist left all material objects and money behind to peacefully in the wild. He didn’t the society by leaving, but probably felt better about himself not being part of it, just like the ones who walked away from Omelas would feel.
How does this child’s misery bring happiness to the citizens of Omelas?
Why would letting the child free not bring him happiness?
Besides the message of happiness, does Omelas represent our society?
I don’t think that Omelas represents our society because passages from the text and my own thoughts. First of all, in the story it says, “they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuelless power, a cure for the common cold.” Even though the author later says that they may not have these things she still gives us the idea that this is a completely different society. I think that if she wanted us to think this represented our society she would have described a society closer to our own.
Socratic Seminar Reflection
War
An interesting theory I overheard in the other seminar group was that if was suddenly abolished, wars would become more economical. Countries would put sanctions on each other, resulting in hunger which would kill many deaths especially to the smaller countries that rely heavily on trading. I also heard someone argue that an economical war would not kill anyone, because these countries could get food from their own land. While this is true, I personally believe without war the economical wars would be much more extreme. When a few sanctions isn’t enough to get what one county wants from the other, the larger country will hold sanctions on counties who support the opposing nation, I believe this will affect the entire world. When necessities such as clean, fresh water and oil are deprived of nations, people could get killed attempting to steal from wealthier countries, which is no more peaceful than any other war. So, in a way I agree that economical war are dangerous.
From this seminar, I have developed a deeper understanding of the roots of war. Before, I had never thought of the reasons of war as more than just two sides with different images for the world. Now, I have established two reasons for war, power or defense. For example, in World War II we went to war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. We were being defensive. The Germans started the war for power. Their goal was to kill all people of the Jewish religion. In the civil war, the south wanted power over the slaves, they wanted dominance. The north fought, in defense, for the rights of the slaves. Although, it seems as if there would be no need for defense if there was no country with the desire for power, so all wars start with power.
When we discussed weather war was an addiction or not I connected it to “The Hurt Locker,” a movie went over this same issue. In this movie the protagonist is at war for a long time. By the time he gets back to America, he already feels that he needs to go back. In a way he was addicted to war. So I do believe that you can get addicted to war, but I don’t think it’s natural or even common. Most people I hear of who return from the worst of war are mentally or emotionally scarred. Most are terrified of war. Those who actually become addicted have probably been at it for so long they have become desensitized to the point where can’t get enough of it.
I think that the category I did best in was communication. This is because I had a good balance of listening and talking. I let others speak and commented or asked a question whenever I wouldn’t interrupt another comment. I still could improve in this category because I didn’t use any conversation movers or invite other people in, although most people had no trouble participating. I didn’t make any personal connections. This would be a category where I need the most improvement. I can do this by thinking of memories similar to the topic that I can relate the conversation too. I could also recall some of these memories or personal connections before the seminar.
