In this vast world, there are many things that people would be afraid of. But most of the time, it is not a physical object that inhibits our ability to accomplish goals, and is rather an abstract thought or feeling. I am not afraid of darkness, nor am I really afraid of animals and the like. Instead, I fear something that is often overlooked, and something that is not easily identified. The one thing I fear is arrogance; in both myself and others, I fear this emotion that has accumulated throughout my life and continues to haunt me to this very day.
Arrogance is a natural emotion that we feel, and yet it is something that will undoubtedly hinder us in one way or another. I am a person that also fears ignorance, but ignorance is something that can be cured with enough study and motivation. Arrogance, however, is something that we gain as we continue to pursue knowledge and is very difficult to ignore or conquer. But many people have different views on arrogance, and some say that it is not a vice, and may be in fact a boon. Looking at facts however, I completely disagree and think that arrogance will carve out the path to our downfall. As humans get better, they naturally think of themselves as better as well. However, humans would sometimes be narcissistic to the point that they think of themselves as the best in the world, as something that they clearly are not. Resulting from this, they revere themselves until they enter a delusion and do not face reality when they finally fail in accomplishing a task. They will then come up with other-worldy excuses and try to explain, without letting go of the thought that they are the best on the Earth, their loss. I fear this; never do I want to see myself as the best, and always would I want to see myself as a challenger; I want to view myself as one that is worse than others, for it gives me motivation from the sense of competition involved. By deluding reality, we also lose the sense of defeat and will to win against others. The reason that many people learn best from mistakes and losses is because they feel defeated, and feel the desire to retake the challenge and win. When one is arrogant, one completely loses this sense of loss, and does not think of one's defeat as a real one. Thus, one does not learn and continues to act arrogantly, never finding an escape to their delusions. I fear arrogance greatly because it would not only deteriorate my lifestyle, but would also cause my motivations to crumble down. I fear that my arrogance will continue to grow, and will not only be a large burden on my studies, but also cause me to be a person that is extremely ill-mannered and degrading of others.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Emotions of Man
Fedor Dostoevsky, through his novel, uses realistic situations and dialogue to portray the raw emotion of man. By reading both the dialogue and the inner thoughts of the characters, we can understand how human emotion can completely take control over one's way of thinking. Many quotes throughout the story reveal cases where all logic is discarded and emotion is dominant--three of which I believe to be important will be further discussed.
Raskolnikov, the protagonist, has an acquaintance who was a former government official, but lost his position and fell into the depths of poverty. With no choices left, the daughter of this former official goes into prosititution, and the family despair. However, with time, the family stops looking for another solution to their poverty, and begin to rely on the income gained from this prostitution, which they so much loathed before. As Raskolnikov looks upon this situation, he frowns, commenting that "they wept at first, but now they are used to it. Men are scoundrels; they can get used to anything" (25). This statement is definitely relatable with everyday life, how, no matter how immoral something may be, mankind can somehow convince themselves that it's a natural thing to do and that it's "normal". The point that I believe Dostoevsky is trying to convey is that, in a situation where one is given a choice of committing an immoral act to survive, or to search for another solution, one would naturally commit the act. The reason is that one feels desperation, and the more one searches for another solution and fails, the more desperate one gets. After a period of time, this desperation grows to the point where it fosters delusions, and man will naturally believe that they had no choice but to commit the act, and that it was justified. When the harsh reality is introduced into this delusion however, one will only fall farther. This ties in nicely with the story, because in the novel, Raskolnikov has been pondering over a thought for months on end. This act was to murder a pawnbroker, and to steal her money. Because of the poverty that Raskolnikov faces, and the fact that he has found no other solution to this poverty, I think that the author is foreshadowing that he will eventually commit the act due to desperation and end the life of the pawnbroker.
Later on in the story, Raskolnikov receives a letter from his mother, basically saying that his sister would be marrying a rich man for the sole reason of securing his future and giving him business connections. However, found in the letter were many hints of the personality of this rich person, Luzhin. With a bit of interpretation, one can immediately see that Luzhin is an extremely materialistic man, and treats people like tools. Luzhin himself stated that he "ought not to be under any sort of obligation to his wife, and it was much better if she looked upon him as her benefactor" (33). This line definitely reveals his personality, and I think that the author is trying to relate Luzhin with the people of modern day; how people are beginning to only see the numbers and the benefits from things, and not the actual thing itself. We are becoming a race that relies heavily on math, computers, and other numerical things; as a result, we are beginning to treat others in the same fashion as we do with these things and our feelings, in contrast, are deteriorating. Dostoevsky seems to be hinting at the natural emotion of man, greed, and how it is constantly integrating itself more and more into our lives. He is somewhat saying that the evolution of our technology is the devolution of our humanity. Raskolnikov picks up on the personality of Luzhin, and I believe that, enraged at this, he will definitely try to do something to stop the marriage.
As stated before, a letter from Raskolnikov's mother was sent, and in the letter, the mother and sister insist that Luzhin was a good man inside; completely turning a blind eye to his speech and thought which largely hint at a sense of materialism. Raskolnikov then comments on his family's behaviour, that "up to the very last moment they see people through rose-coloured spectacles; up to the very last moment they hope for good and not evil; and even if they have some misgivings that there is a reverse side to the medal, they refuse to admit them even to themselves ... ; they wave the truth away with both hands until the very moment when the over-idealized person appears in his true colours and cocks a snook at them" (40). The meaning of the line is quite self-explanatory, and once again shows both the desperation and the greed of man. As stated before, when given a situation where there is one solution presented, and no other solutions are visible, one would naturally choose the presented solution, no matter how immoral or how fake it may seem. In this case, the mother and the sister act gullible and ignorant due to the desperation of their situation. Deep down inside, they know that Luzhin is in fact a terrible person, but they cling onto the faint hope, the delusion that he will save them from their troubles. Instead, their desperation will only lead them deeper into problems, and they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Dostoevsky, throughout the story, focuses less on its plot, and is more intent on showing the raw emotion of man and the harsh reality of life. Instead of providing the readers with a fairy-tale like story, he provides us with relatable characters and gives us a more general view on mankind. While the quotes discussed are related to the story itself, I feel that they are more intended to give the readers a better understanding on the reality of man and how he thinks.
Raskolnikov, the protagonist, has an acquaintance who was a former government official, but lost his position and fell into the depths of poverty. With no choices left, the daughter of this former official goes into prosititution, and the family despair. However, with time, the family stops looking for another solution to their poverty, and begin to rely on the income gained from this prostitution, which they so much loathed before. As Raskolnikov looks upon this situation, he frowns, commenting that "they wept at first, but now they are used to it. Men are scoundrels; they can get used to anything" (25). This statement is definitely relatable with everyday life, how, no matter how immoral something may be, mankind can somehow convince themselves that it's a natural thing to do and that it's "normal". The point that I believe Dostoevsky is trying to convey is that, in a situation where one is given a choice of committing an immoral act to survive, or to search for another solution, one would naturally commit the act. The reason is that one feels desperation, and the more one searches for another solution and fails, the more desperate one gets. After a period of time, this desperation grows to the point where it fosters delusions, and man will naturally believe that they had no choice but to commit the act, and that it was justified. When the harsh reality is introduced into this delusion however, one will only fall farther. This ties in nicely with the story, because in the novel, Raskolnikov has been pondering over a thought for months on end. This act was to murder a pawnbroker, and to steal her money. Because of the poverty that Raskolnikov faces, and the fact that he has found no other solution to this poverty, I think that the author is foreshadowing that he will eventually commit the act due to desperation and end the life of the pawnbroker.
Later on in the story, Raskolnikov receives a letter from his mother, basically saying that his sister would be marrying a rich man for the sole reason of securing his future and giving him business connections. However, found in the letter were many hints of the personality of this rich person, Luzhin. With a bit of interpretation, one can immediately see that Luzhin is an extremely materialistic man, and treats people like tools. Luzhin himself stated that he "ought not to be under any sort of obligation to his wife, and it was much better if she looked upon him as her benefactor" (33). This line definitely reveals his personality, and I think that the author is trying to relate Luzhin with the people of modern day; how people are beginning to only see the numbers and the benefits from things, and not the actual thing itself. We are becoming a race that relies heavily on math, computers, and other numerical things; as a result, we are beginning to treat others in the same fashion as we do with these things and our feelings, in contrast, are deteriorating. Dostoevsky seems to be hinting at the natural emotion of man, greed, and how it is constantly integrating itself more and more into our lives. He is somewhat saying that the evolution of our technology is the devolution of our humanity. Raskolnikov picks up on the personality of Luzhin, and I believe that, enraged at this, he will definitely try to do something to stop the marriage.
As stated before, a letter from Raskolnikov's mother was sent, and in the letter, the mother and sister insist that Luzhin was a good man inside; completely turning a blind eye to his speech and thought which largely hint at a sense of materialism. Raskolnikov then comments on his family's behaviour, that "up to the very last moment they see people through rose-coloured spectacles; up to the very last moment they hope for good and not evil; and even if they have some misgivings that there is a reverse side to the medal, they refuse to admit them even to themselves ... ; they wave the truth away with both hands until the very moment when the over-idealized person appears in his true colours and cocks a snook at them" (40). The meaning of the line is quite self-explanatory, and once again shows both the desperation and the greed of man. As stated before, when given a situation where there is one solution presented, and no other solutions are visible, one would naturally choose the presented solution, no matter how immoral or how fake it may seem. In this case, the mother and the sister act gullible and ignorant due to the desperation of their situation. Deep down inside, they know that Luzhin is in fact a terrible person, but they cling onto the faint hope, the delusion that he will save them from their troubles. Instead, their desperation will only lead them deeper into problems, and they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Dostoevsky, throughout the story, focuses less on its plot, and is more intent on showing the raw emotion of man and the harsh reality of life. Instead of providing the readers with a fairy-tale like story, he provides us with relatable characters and gives us a more general view on mankind. While the quotes discussed are related to the story itself, I feel that they are more intended to give the readers a better understanding on the reality of man and how he thinks.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Fate of English
It has taken many centuries for English to evolve into what it is today. It should also be no exception that English will continue to change; the problem is whether the change shall continue this history of evolution. And in modern day, many have, with valid arguments, began to debate whether or not the change into textism or "text talk" will be beneficial. I agree with some of the points argued from both sides, but, logically speaking, textism is not yet at the point at which it can overtake formal English.
There are both ups and downs when considering the benefits of text talk. It is a very efficient and fast method of communication that is partnered well with the rapid pace that is created by the tier of technology that we have today. In these days, formal English is slow and lags behind--textism is much more practical. In terms of efficiency, text talk by far defeats formal English.
The real problem, however, is whether or not text talk should invade our education and work. It is obvious that, if one can capture all the elements of an English sentence and shorten it into text talk, then textism is superior. The problem is that it cannot. Textism is merely a form of colloquialism, it was never meant to be compared with formal English. Unless textism can somehow evolve into a much more advanced yet still compact form of language, I do not see how it can compete with formal English, which has many subtle literary devices, great use of vocabulary, and strong imagery. Also, because of the practices that many of us have endured for years, we see textism as a form of casual talk. When seen in an essay or an informative piece of work, we instantly feel disrespect towards us and lose interest. At this point of time, it would be too inconvenient and not worth the effort for us to move into textism.
From what I see, textism is definitely a sign of an evolution of the modern day English. However, at our current age, a new form of English is not yet necessary, and the alternative with which we're given, textism, is not quite up to par yet as well.
There are both ups and downs when considering the benefits of text talk. It is a very efficient and fast method of communication that is partnered well with the rapid pace that is created by the tier of technology that we have today. In these days, formal English is slow and lags behind--textism is much more practical. In terms of efficiency, text talk by far defeats formal English.
The real problem, however, is whether or not text talk should invade our education and work. It is obvious that, if one can capture all the elements of an English sentence and shorten it into text talk, then textism is superior. The problem is that it cannot. Textism is merely a form of colloquialism, it was never meant to be compared with formal English. Unless textism can somehow evolve into a much more advanced yet still compact form of language, I do not see how it can compete with formal English, which has many subtle literary devices, great use of vocabulary, and strong imagery. Also, because of the practices that many of us have endured for years, we see textism as a form of casual talk. When seen in an essay or an informative piece of work, we instantly feel disrespect towards us and lose interest. At this point of time, it would be too inconvenient and not worth the effort for us to move into textism.
From what I see, textism is definitely a sign of an evolution of the modern day English. However, at our current age, a new form of English is not yet necessary, and the alternative with which we're given, textism, is not quite up to par yet as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)