User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School/English
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Unless you see a crass spelling mistake you are welcome to correct it!)
Contents |
[edit] Critical Book Review - Maya by Jostein Gaarder
Critical Book Review
For my book review I chose a book from the Norwegian Author named Jostein Gaarder, the man who also wrote the very popular book “Sophies Verden”. This time the book I read was called “Maya” and also in the style of the author pretty intricate and a little bit peculiar in his sense. Since Mr. Gaarder is an intellectual of his own kind he writes a lot of philosophical novels. Mostly, the books he writes he personally considers to be child books, but they are fraught with deepness of thought that most people would consider highly complicated concepts of mind. For instance as in “Sophies Verden” the girl starts for the first time to think about the world and it's secrets and discovers playfully elaborate philosophical concepts. But Mr. Gaarder's view is that children are still in the state of being able to wonder about everything that happens in the world, for anybody who grows mature looses his excitement about things because he gets used to it and falls in a trot of the every day life. As in “Sophies Verden” “Maya” is another wonderful work that reaches beyond and lets one feel to discover the enchanting mysteries of the world anew. Its plot – to picture it only very roughly – is about a Norwegian scientist for biological matters and especially with the focus on evolutionary topics. His name is Frank and in 1998 he traveled to Oceania to the Fiji islands to Taveuni to conduct studies on the on the subject of plants and animals their as well as on the influence of humans intervention there. As he gets their he has that incidence where is flown in a really shabby airplane by an old pilot between the islands. Here Frank thinks the first time about that it is so easy to die for a human being and that the human husk is too fragile. He sees him as a human being as the apex of evolution that took billions of years to create something like man but to die takes such a short time. This pretty sets the stage for one of the major concerns of the books that will get later more entangled and intertwined into the whole. Other than in “Sophies Verden” the reader will not be directly confronted with the discussion of philosophy in the first place but it is present and still everywhere. Now, arrived at one of the islands in the hotel Frank decided to take a walk. Because Fiji is at the dateline where you could walk from one day to another he encountered Spanish reporters – a man and a women, a couple, and very much in love – who supposedly made a show for the Spanish television about the upcoming millennium. Their names are Ana and Jose. In the first place Frank already thought that Ana resembled somebody he had seen before. Furthermore, Frank had some knowledge in Spanish because he had a Spanish wife ones and the two Spaniards spoke strange phrases in Spanish that didn't seem to fit in the situation. They said things like: “There exist a world. In terms of probability this borders on the impossible. It would have been far more likely if, by chance there was nothing at all. Then, at least, no one would have begun asking why there was nothing.” This surprised him pretty much because this just fitted into his thought process about everything he was concerned with at the time. Back at the hotel he wanted to take few sips out of his Gordon gin bottle he brought – because it was illegal to purchase such things in Fiji – but there was a Gecko sitting on it. After he imagined the Gecko to talk to him and after having negotiated with him because Frank didn't want the Gecko to break the precious bottle and spill the beverage, he named it finally Gordon – after the gin. A “serious relationship” developed and Frank had deep philosophical talk to the Gecko about evolution and Gordon's reptile or lizard nature, their common evolutionary ancestors, and the meaning of life. The reptiles would have made it finally so far as the humans if they wouldn't have been unfairly destroyed by the comet that crashed the earth 60 millions years ago. Sometimes, I would say, he has flashes about that he talks only with himself because he ask Gordon where he knows all the things from and if there was a special University for Geckos on the island then or where Gordon knew all the stuff from he did over the day (because he used to talked to him during the night and usually after he had taken some gin). Then on the island he made some other people, too. He met this English writer called John Spooke who was very reserved and always took notes for a new novel he was about to write, he said. Also, he said that Ana, the Spaniard resembles someone he had seen before. Also, Frank still had some hidden issues about his former life. He had the Spanish wife called Vera, both were scientist and Vera said there would be only one man for her in his life. So she finally moved to Norway and they had a child. The little girl died from an incidence Vera blamed herself always for. They couldn't never get over it so they finally separated. I think the two loving Spaniards – who were still going on with their strange assertions that seemed always learned by heart, and for a time, I think, Frank really believed him fooled; even though he was sure they couldn't know that he speaks Spanish - reminded him of him and Vera. Frank also made that girl with one and one brown eye. He was attracted to her in some strange way. And ones after an evening he finally slept with her. Gordon watched. She had the world view that the whole world is only one big thing and this big one was called maya – the world spirit. Gordon was going ahead an was always more and more officious – eventually he even considers himself the world spirit. Then Johne Spoke organized something he called the “tropical summit” where they got all the guys who coincidentally happened to stay there at the same time. They first were pretty hesitant but then a poker game through them together and they discovered each other better. During the whole game Ana and Jose didn't seem to pay attention that much and rather continued mumbling their seldom phrases to each other. But at the end they lucked totally out. Further on, they discussed their views on life and the Spaniards pretty much questions Frank about his knowledge in the theories about evolution. Then as they came to discuss the world spirit maya Johne Spoke got directly up and said that everything is maya and then he directly pointed and touched Ana's forehead and said “and you are maya too”. Jose got thereof up as to protect her. Later on that evening Ana got kind of a faintly attack and they had to withdraw from the summit. I think this indicated for Frank pretty much that there was something more going on. As Frank had to leave at the end the English other John Spoke told him he should go to the famous museum called Prado in Madrid – John's favorite artist is Goya. Indeed, in Madrid after some months he should see Jose and Ana coincidentally again. Frank also tried to met with Vera and clear the issue about their children. There was a conference in Madrid about animal species and he would meet there with her there. It was difficult for both but mostly for Vera, because she left the car where her daughter died without supervision so that it rolled down the hill and killed her. He told her about Ana and Jose but she didn't believe him supposedly. Jose and Ana came more and more somehow intertwined with Vera and Jose. And once Jose met Frank and told him that Ana died. Ana loved flamenco dancing a lot but she couldn't dance anymore due to a heart issue. Frank noticed that she liked flamenco because she could barely hold her body still once music was going. They went to the Prado together and Jose showed Frank the picture of Goyas “La Maya Desnuda” and another picture that was just alike but that showed the same model that was previously naked now dressed. Frank was baffled when he saw that the face of the model was just like Ana's, exactly alike. Now he knew where he had seen her before. Jose explained that there are mysterious about the picture and nobody knew where the model actually was. The issue was so strange and Jose utter some possibilities and nobody knew. Then there was that story that – so I found – was pretty confusing he told. It was about that Ana's family was on of the best gypsy flamenco family that dated backed hundreds of centuries. There was a well kept family tale that was thoroughly explained in the novel. But finally out of a deck of a Skat game all figures on the images happened to be awoken by the imagination of a lost sailor in the Caribbean on an island. He was so alone that is mere imagination made them to be real now. I think this here shows a very deep connection with the actual fate of mankind itself. If people believe that there was an creation others say it might just be a mere dream of something or even just random nothingness. The struggle of humankind of understanding is pretty shown in here as though there was the seeking for the final cause – the reason of being – to be existent after all. The figures now became real but didn't really know where they came from and just lived happy. Only Joker – which was frequently mentioned by Ana and Jose in their seemingly random assertions they made – was the one who wasn't like the others and wanted to know what life really is. As the island was to sink everybody was going down with the isle except for the sailor himself and Joker. Joker finally got back with him to Spain. This here pretty much shows that some human individuals, that might not seem to fit in society, are mostly always those great thinkers or philosophers of the time. The sciences as being a mere side-product of the deep philosophic meaning made some people to the side-standers they were in society. But finally they might have figured something out and everything who listens might gain from it. How ever, the Joker is mentioned to have intervened with Ana's family and to have appeared every 50 years to get in touch with Ana's family, so it was reported over the time. People always died thereof somehow, very mysteriously. Somehow the Joker is the world spirit and seems in my opinion pretty absurd, for he is able to travel in time and do everything he wants to do. The statements Jose and Ana were citing in the Fijis over and over were actually quotes from the cards of the Skat deck that also Joker was a part of. I think throughout the story Frank kind of saw himself a little and then more and more as the guy who is pondering about the universe and its matters. He makes his own personal life to global concern and the whole vast history of mankind to his own. Also, I think there is conflict between him seeing it like this and his own fate. He knows theoretically a lot, and he knows that evolution only works through dying and evolving in a cosmic span. But then when the life of his own daughter is abruptly ended he has some demurs. Over all the relationship between Vera and Frank seems pretty strange and Frank is balancing between there mere theoretical and a life that is normal – what might not be possible for an evolutionary biologist who sees life to dry and sober. But now in the situation were Ana died and he is in contact with Jose, he sees that Ana’s whole family history seems to be a whole mystery that can not be understood by his dry assessments. How the heck did Ana get on the painting of Goya that was made 200 years ago? As I mentioned was there that Joker and supposedly had he taken a photograph of Ana what he had taken in a park on the very same day Ana died. She sat on a bench and she looked more like the Maya Dissnuda because she had exactly the same attire at that day. Then in the family history there are fragments of a lore about a shiny and smooth picture that Goya had obtained from a dwarf (he later turned out to be the Joker). 200 years ago nobody had seen that because it was a photograph brought back by the dwarf in time. I know, it sounds pretty absurd, but it really is. The Joker, once born was ethereal and therefore inscrutably able to travel through time. He was even present as the sailor bought the deck of Skat cards he was part of and actually just about to be created. This story is so confusing and unbelievable but the real life events that follow, I think, don’t really seem to fit anymore. Ana said before she died that her burial would be rather – albeit anybody would mourn about her – be a new birth. I think in the end it all dissolves itself and everybody parted solely and unhappy. Now, it turned out that this whole thing was just the novel of John Spoke! Only the end with the story about Joker was made up by him. This is pretty much on of the typical features of novel by Mr. Gaarder again. Since reality is never certain, everything that is just written in a book and thus being invoked in one’s mind is as valid as reality itself; for nobody without a thoughtful mind actually knows what reality is really like. So, the rest on the Fijis actually happened but John Spoke made his story out of it. It turned out that he was the actually figure behind all this; for he had lost his wife he was so attached to. In my opinion he just saw all this was happening to form story to handle his own severe loss. Also, from the beginning on he had a huge influence on things that happened in real life for he manipulated letters, organized set ups to delude Frank and used all cunning methods one could imaging; or he knew along time before Frank that Ana resembled the Maya Dessnuda. In the end the story turned out a little happier. The phrases Anna and Jose cited all the time were just about the Spanish provinces and Ana did not have a heart issue. Vera and Frank found together again for Vera was pregnant from him and Ana pregnant from Jose. True love endured all this and the main purpose, as I got it, was to have a huge set up of John Spoke to help Vera and Frank to overcome their discrepancies about the loss of the girl. Even though of this secular issue John showed Frank that there is more in life than just the mere struggle for survival and science. There is also the mystical side of the spiritual that he should experience. John knew what he was talking about.
In my opinion, again, we see a wonderful novel by Gaarder. Just a must for any ponderous soul to read.
[edit] 1984 Quiz for pages 127-185
Quiz for 1984: Pages 127-185
How did Katharine - Winston’s wife, of whom he himself hadn’t heard in quite a while – called or described their sexual relationship? What type of person is Katherine according to Winston and Newspeak?
How does Julia reason when she says that the Party doesn’t allow deep relationships between individuals because of what reason?
How is the annual event called that is so highly and busily anticipated, lasts one whole week and is “celebrated” with a lot of political enthusiasm?
What is the major difference between Winston’s and Julia’s perception and expression of rebellion against the Party?
What does O’Brien represent for Winston?
What is “the book”?
[edit] Essay on Justice
Corrective justice. We could start out right here by taking a closer look at the words of which this is actually compounded. Justice should be obvious to discern even though the term of something just is a little bit ambiguous sometimes. But what does corrective mean then used in the same phrase? Or what does actually Aristotle mean when he states that “corrective justice is a mean between profit and loss”.
First off we probably should approach this by asking the very general question of what and when something is considered just. Now, when I hear the word justice there are several things coming into my mind. Generally I have three perception or opinions being confronted with the term of justice.
There is something that is the “nasty aspect” how I would call it. It is something that the state or the authority exerts or inflicts upon its citizens as to create and order according to the state's interpretation of lawfulness. In the modern democracies of our time it can be said that this system of the state is set up mostly to level out pecuniary differences between people so that everybody “equal before the law”. Certainly, those things have been set up to follow a certain perception of justice since they are meant to be just. Just in these terms would probably mean that there is nothing but the law to judge about people without arbitrariness and to maintain this so that nobody will ever take away – everything shall be handled with the same procedure abiding by the same set of rules. But I call this one aspect of justice nasty because nobody really thinks about it really in every day living unless one gets in conflict with it. Then as quickly as it can be possible the presumed justice of the state might turn into a feeling of injustice for the single individual when there is a punishment going to happen or a fee is to pay. Also, there might be the feeling of being treated unjust because it can be very difficult for the law giver to enforce its rules spatial, timely or personally equally. Here is probably the chasm between law and justice when it comes to the equal application to it. Furthermore, some setups made by the lawgiver might not exist to attain a just state at any cost but to merely fill the empty pockets. But since nobody else can tell us what is just or not who can check it then? And with what success, if the antagonist is just considered unjust thereat by the ruler?
Well, this tricky situation leads us to the second point of what comes into my mind when I hear justice. Even if the opponent is just found unlawful and therewith unjust by the authority it does not mean that he “really is”. What I want to point out with this is that there appears to be something what I would call the “inane aspect” of justice. Generally, humans seem to have a feeling for what is right or wrong. The occurrence of this phenomenon is probably more settled in the environment people are raised in their youth or early childhood. There are certain morals stemming from beliefs or creeds of the generations before that have developed or have been obtained. It always depends on the time period or era how those values are. People have always been thinking about what is just or not. In the primeval society there was pretty much anarchy prevailing and everybody could just do how he wanted to. According to man's violent nature it was pretty much chaotic until in the antique and before people had developed some general ideas about what is just. The first written codex of law (what we would considered pretty unfair nowadays) was found in Babylon. According to this the perpetrator may have been punished the same way he committed a crime to “equal it out”. Then in the middle ages the church had a pretty big influence on the picture in the minds of people how justice should be seen. Therefrom the code of chivalry is a pretty good example how courtesy was a mean of justice. Even though those ideas of justice had been around a while it was mostly a matter of honorable manners, consorting with other nobles, showing respect to the enemy or reign wisely. It was the ideal that floated around in the head of the nobles. But because of the lack of a written law in those times (not just called dark ages for no reason) there existed enough deceiver, fraud and deception as well as exploitation of the poor. Human nature of grasping the chance for might and power when it's there, no matter how, prevails demur. But still today, our system of law (now written out) is based on those ideas of the Jewish-Christian morals. How it developed in the first place is not quite clear except for that vague feeling of everybody that certain thing ought or ought not to be as they are. Probably, as opposed to the mere animal, humans have a mind and can apply consideration and leniency in certain ways. This might be the source of developing morals and henceforth the current view of justice; for the sheer animal is only concerned for its own survival at all costs because it does not have to (an cannot) fear possible consequences of its actions in terms of justice. Whereas, humans have a good reason to worry because punishment is an important action when maintaining the level of justice. A human can consider consequences of his actions and if it seems to be worth trying it why not just do it and take the risk because the outlook is so good for success? Maybe he'll get away with it. Also, another problem here arising is vengeance that can sometimes be more devastating than the actual deed was. Because there is this feeling of justice made possible by the ability of man to soberly reason through an issue what is, alas, sometimes heavily distorted by feelings and not reasonable anymore. Therefore, man has chosen to write all his reasoning about justice down and for every situation let people decide who are not personally connected with the case, which is perceived as unjust by either of the not unanimous parties, according to those writings. If this is exploited the antagonist from above might be considered unlawful but not necessarily unjust based upon the common sense with what people might have reasoned his actions through. Even though we would like to think that common sense or reason are totally independent from any emotional I don't think. As I mentioned above there must have been some sort of development of even such a deep and basic level of assessment. And if not a complete development then at least some modifying of it was going on in the course of history.
Now the third thought coming into my mind about justice is the actual denial of justice itself. Justice, as we would like it, being that absolute value does naturally not exist. Justice can be as easily negated when taking a look at modern biology and concerning evolution as the factor that decided the the path life took over the millenniums. The gist of this is that evolution is cruel because it is based on dying, of selecting and sorting out the weak elements to render a good survival for the one that may adapt as the fittest and therefore survives. It is based on exploitation of weaknesses and using advantages, biologically spoken. There is no reasonable factor for what should be considered justice in this situation because everything is permissible in this struggle for survival. Man, as having emerged with his smartness of mind from this mess reached a state, where he now finally could curb evolution of his own species by means of medicine and health care. The same kind of man spread all over the planet. Still man bares the burden of his animalness and after all who just takes the right to set up random rules that mean nothing in a world that has developed by being cruel and unfair? Reason may lead to man to the most just decision that there are and that would be possible but the animal within demands differently. If there would be perfect justice why don't just call it communism?
At last I still want to assert something about Aristotle's neat quote about corrective justice. What he talks about is the idealized believe how justice should be carried out. He already implies that there is something like justice and does not question it's existence. How specifically he doesn't say. In his corrective justice the believe is hold that for any unjust action their ought to be something of “equal” worse to inflict upon the culprit of unjust behavior. In earlier times certainly more taken by the word the infliction of equal worse is now curbed due to modern ethics. For instance in many countries it is not lawful to kill somebody if the killed somebody else or to chop one's hand of because he did so. The attaining of equality is inflicted differently. Sometimes demand a harder punishment because they say it's unjust that the bad guy only got it this hard for this and that. This causes discord among people and the process of justifying is made even more difficult. Corrective in his sense probably just means that the wrong has been corrected and made right now. But the actually reason why somebody should bring the sensitive balance out whack remains unrevealed in Aristotle's statements. To concept of the absolute good merely doesn't exist but he couldn't have known of evolution at his time. Complete justice is a myth that cannot be attained with man's current biological and physical condition. But the thought is there and if it is good or not I can't say. If there wouldn't have been mind nobody would have probably ever cared to assign a value to an action an make up such things as good or bad.
