Frank Illidge Point Counter Point

Frank Illidge is Lord Edward's scientific assistant. He is a small, middle-aged man who is scientifically-minded and an evolutionist. "Illidge was small, alert, and jerky. And what a comic face! Like a street Arab's, with its upturned nose and wide slit mouth; a very intelligent, sharp-written street Arab's face. Besides, who can be superior with freckles? Illidge's complexion was sandy with them"(51).  He has a strong hatred for all rich people or anyone who is "tall and handsome". He is extremely insecure and cares a lot about his public appearance. Frank is a communist which leads us to his philosophy. These are intertwined. He believes everyone should have an equal opportunity, and everyone should be equal. I feel that these ideas stem from his lack of opportunities from being poor. It makes me wonder if he would still have the same ideals if he were rich? A scene that represents his ideals is when Frank shows up to the party. He often criticizes everything about the rich folk there, and finds something wrong with each of them. He is thrilled when someone seems to take interest in him, as he wants to be just like everyone else. However he then finds out that she was faking it. this leads him to ridicule the rich even more.

Existential Analysis of Mersault

"Given the existential idea of Existence precedes Essence, at what point in the book does Mersault finally make a choice that would give his existence essence? In other words, at what point does he finally become a person, an identity, a 'self'??

In my eyes, Mersault finally finds essence in his existence when he shoots the Arab. However, it is important to note their first encounter with the Arabs, when he does not shoot. During this encounter Mersault says, "It was then that I realized that you could either shoot or not shoot".(56) Here, he finally recognizes the existence of choice, and therefore, he takes his first step towards finally giving his existence essence. He becomes a self after he shoots the Arab because that is when he finally makes an active choice to commit to an action instead of being passive. By shooting the Arab, his action can be used to define a purpose of his life, which is what giving essence to one's existence means.

Walt Whitman Poem Reflection

I celebrate myself, and sing myself,

I loafe and invite my soul,

Creeds and schools in abeyance,

Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never

forgotten,

I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every 

hazard,

Nature without check with original energy.

I feel that this poem conveys that Whitman is a spiritual man who tries to engulf himself in nature whenever he can. He celebrates the beauty of life and the unity of man. Furthermore, the poem shows that he holds a patriotic national identity as well as an overall connection between people all over the world. In addition, he says that all men are connected and should therefore learn from one another. The poem aims to teach us the importance of nature and its close relation with humanity. For example, he says that while an initial education may be important, the truly important lessons in life are figured out by experiencing nature. Lastly, he believes that humanity should not interfere with the course of nature whether it is good or bad.

A Significant Impact on the Person I Am Today

            Throughout the course of my life, my father has had a tremendous impact on the person I am today. Ever since I was little, I would admire him for his consistent optimism and happiness no matter what the circumstances were. Furthermore, as I continued to grow my dad showed me all the categories of work he pursued after college, which include architecture and engineering. Luckily for me, I was able to instantly discover that I share a similar passion for engineering and architecture. After I made this clear to my father, he would bring me along on some of his projects to educate me as much as he could on both respective fields. For example, in my summer going into my sophomore year, he purchased a property in Santa Cruz and demolished it. After the demolition, I sat down with him every night at his drafting table to learn how to draw intricate plans for the construction of the house. In addition, I learned many of the county and state regulations that one must consider if they want to construct a house in Santa Cruz. After we finished drafting all the plans and received approval, my dad had me come to begin construction with him all of his workers. I stayed at the Santa Cruz property for the next three weeks, and it was easily one of the most rewarding experiences of my lifetime. Since there was no house to stay in, I lived the next three weeks inside a motor home with my father and four of his employees. I have never had to work so hard in my life, which was quite a funny conclusion considering I didn't even work half as hard as men who were more than double my age. Overall, these experiences have had a significant impact on the hard-working, meticulous person I am today.

Second Socratic Seminar Response

     One aspect of the seminar that I found particularly interesting was our discussion of Lewis's critic on humanity through the peaceful society depicted on Malacandra. Some people thought that perhaps the separation of the three humanoid beings was Lewis saying that our society can never achieve peace unless were are separated into smaller societies based on our differences because it is our differences that cause our conflict. However, I feel that our constant conflict and inability to achieve complete peace resides in the combination of human nature and limited number of resources in the world. With that being said, I feel that Lewis's message is not really trying explain that we need segregation, but he is trying to say that human's are greedy, and therefore have too many wants that can not be sustained. In other words, humanity's greed causes them to desire an infinite number of things that are not even necessities. This, in turn, adds to the already inevitable conflict of acquiring things that are necessities. And given the fact that our world cannot even satisfy the true needs of our dense population, we are creating even more unnecessary conflict in the world. Furthermore, we are so caught up in only thinking about ourselves that we lose sight of the importance of other people and living things. Therefore, I believe that our greed makes us oblivious in a sense to seeing the consequences of our actions. Lewis notes this symbolizes our inability to appreciate other life through the hrossa and hnakra when Hyoi explains that even if a hnakra killed him, he would not wish that its species did not exist because he recognizes the unity between his species and theirs. In conclusion, I feel that Lewis is trying to say that the only way our society would be able to achieve complete peace is if all human beings were able to combat their innate selfishness and recognize the importance of all forms of life.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not a truth." (Marcus Aurelius, Roman leader, philosopher, Stoic).

        I agree with Aurelius's statement because I believe that in all situations there exists an infinite number of perspectives, and therefore I believe that all facts are based on nothing more than a group of opinions. For example, some may argue that Aurelius is wrong because if you drop an apple it will unquestionably fall down until it makes contact with the ground; however if one person was standing on their head that apple would appear to be going up. In addition, math was created on the basis of a couple arbitrary conclusions that had to be called facts or else the system would not have lasted because people would consistently question the whole mathematical system if they saw it as nothing more than a perspective. The same is true for time. Who is to say there aren't 48 hours in a day with thirty minutes comprising each hour. Or maybe twenty-four months in a year with an average of around fifteen days each month. With these examples it becomes evident that what we refer to as "facts" are actually just agreements made by a majority of humanity based on similar opinions. But why make these conclusions? Well, without these agreements society could not function efficiently because it would not have a basis for communication and structure. Therefore, humanity only dubs things "facts" in an attempt to create order in a world filled with infinite entropy. Lastly, my agreement with Aurelius's statement brings up one final question: what does all this make my blog entry or even his quote? So, I would like to end this post by making clear that I acknowledge that both this entry and his quote are not facts and nothing more than perspectives.