One thing I found very refreshing during our class discussion on Friday was that everyone seemed very open to the idea of another religion that we as Americans don't have as much exposure to. I've found that a lot of people have a very negative attitude towards other religions, Islam in particular, when they don't know much about the specifics of a religion. Americans specifically have shown the world very intolerant behavior, from churches like Westboro Baptist Church to the minister in Florida who was going to burn the Koran in protest of the mosque being built in New York. I'm not sure where misconceptions about Islam originated, but listening to the things that people say about Muslims is laughable. Most people don't seem to understand is that Muslim extremists aren't the examples of Muslims we should be referencing for our information about the religion. This was always a huge pet peeve of mine: seeing intolerance of other religions stem from things that aren't true. Muslim extremists aren't following the Koran like it was intended to be followed. If you go to a mosque and talk to the Muslims there, they will tell you the same thing--terrorists who do things in "the name of Islam" is a deep source of shame to them. If people would take the time to actually learn about other religions before judging them, I think the world would be a so much better place. I don't understand why an issue like religion is such a big deal. People seem to concern themselves too much with what other people are doing, and don't realize how ridiculous they're acting in the process. So what if someone wants to worship in a different way than you? Is it hurting you to let them have their own religion? Forcing your beliefs on someone else or picking a war over how someone views their god is a ridiculous thing. I have never understood that aspect of the world. I simply don't understand why people can't let others be. Yes, as a Christian I personally don't follow the Islam faith. But that doesn't mean I should assault those who do--everyone should be allowed to worship as they choose without fear of persecution.
Friday, December 2
Essay Response
I enjoyed Malia's essay very much. It is a very unique subject topic, something very different from what I think most of the class did. Malia explored the implications of Sappho's poetry in both ancient and modern times. Sappho wrote about love in most of her poems, but not in the same way of poet's today. Many people who read Sappho's poetry may read homosexual undertones into her work, or try to dig deeper meanings into her poetry than may really be present. This action can be seen even in our own Honors 201 class when we tried to pull out hidden symbolism and deduce what each line meant. In reality, as Malia explains, the focus of Sappho's poetry should not be what kind of love--man and woman, father and daughter, or woman and woman--that Sappho wrote about. The aspect of her poetry that the world should focus on is love in general. Sappho obviously thought love was extremely important, since that was all she wrote about, but her poetry has been lost in the implications that society has put into her writing.
Malia uses the musical RENT as an example of how things like homosexuality can mask the true meaning of a work of art. RENT is a show about living in the moment, but society runs from a musical with a brilliant message because some of the main characters exhibit homosexuality. The work as a whole is very open about sex and relationships, but that is far from the focus. Malia also mentions that although America may seem to be shirking the fear of homosexuality it previously had, but in all reality, we as a society still have a long way to go.
The essay brings up several interesting points that I had not previously thought about. Although the example of RENT comes on suddenly and could be tied in more explicitly, it is a very good example that ties in our modern culture with that of Sappho's. The essay turns slightly persuasive in areas, telling the reader about the pitfalls of American culture and how homophobia is something we should be truly avoiding. The ending is sudden and doesn't do the paper justice, but I know that is an easy fix. A few transitional sentences could be helpful for this paper overall, but this paper is very interesting and I loved reading it.
Friday, November 18
Museum Response
I'm really not a big fan of art museums. I like art, and I like looking at art that other people create. But for some reason, art museums are not the same. The art museum on campus did not change that at all. I was surprise at how random the museum seemed to be. Sure, the sculptures were all in one place and the tribal art work was too, but the actual paintings themselves seemed to be thrown together in a hodge podge collection.
I did like how the wall color of each room contributed something to the art work. The wall color in the room with tribal art was a deep red clay color, which I thought tied into the artwork very well. It created a warm feeling in the room and complemented the wood of the sculptures. The room with paintings was a plain cream color, which fit well as it didn't detract from the complexities and details of the paintings.
My favorite piece of the museum was the hanging bottle cap fixture in the sculpture court. It didn't fit in with the bronzed aged sculptures; it was a flash of modern in a dated room. From that aspect it wasn't great (although I'm sure some people liked the mixed atmosphere) but it was such a creative piece that it really captured my attention. It was brilliantly white, which made it stand out as well. I thought it was a very interesting piece.
I really liked the architecture of the building. It was very Gothic, which is a style that I'm a fan of. Even though it looks very cold and imposing, it drew me in. It was very cool to look out over the quad from the entrance to the museum and think that we'll be graduating on those very grounds in less than four years.
Friday, November 11
The Aeneid
I think I have come to my conclusion and thoughts on how Virgil presents women (or at least Dido) in The Aeneid. It seems to me that Virgil doesn't have a great opinion of women. I think he presents Dido in a weak, dramatic, and obsessive way. As we discussed in class, both Aeneas and Dido faced the same challenge: whether to stick with each other and choose love, or to do what was right for their kingdoms and choose duty. Clearly Aeneas chose duty; even in the face of temptation, he remains strong and remembers his devotion to his position (as a man should, Virgil may be thinking). But Dido is another story completely. Since she is a woman, she is weak. She cannot even think to her duty now that she has fallen hopelessly "in love" with Aeneas. She can only think of how her life would suffer terribly if he were not in it (even though he hasn't been in her life until just now and she was doing just fine). She chooses her love over her duty, an attribute which was surely looked down upon in those days I would assume (since kings married for power, not for love, etc.). Because of this, Dido is presented in a manner that makes her seem weaker than Aeneas. I do not see any sympathy for her playing a victim here. I see her being, as someone said in class today, just annoying. She is the epitome of the traditional "helpless woman" who cannot survive without her man by her side.
I do understand that she was influenced by the gods. However, I don't believe the gods made her choose this devastating route. She could have reacted differently to their plans, but she chose this drastic measure as a means to solve her problems, and I really don't have any pity for her. As Jacob said, her death really wasn't regrettable at all.
Critical Essay Topic: For my critical essay, I will be comparing and contrasting the Greek and Roman gods. Already in my research I have seen that they not only go by different names, but are portrayed differently and even have different things that are important to them. I might also look into how they are presented in literature.
Friday, November 4
The Good Life
Can you ask a question about something you don't understand? [MH]
This week has been extremely difficult for me. I have always been very interested in different ways of thinking like our readings provide and discuss, but I just cannot for the life of me understand them. I have not been able to comprehend most of what this week's readings have been about, and I am lost in our class discussions. For this reason, I am struggling to find something to write this journal about. The topic at hand does not hold my interest, mostly because it is such a foreign thing to me that I just cannot understand it. It is not as though I do not want to learn about this or that I am deliberately slacking off, it is simply a comprehension issue. I would much rather be reading things from Ancient Greece or Rome. Literature like that falls more in line with my way of thinking, I guess, and is light years easier for me to understand.
Since I do not have much to say on that topic, I guess I will discuss my group's efforts in completing our presentation. When I was first approached about the idea of a double group project involving a movie, I was more than hesitant to agree. For one, I am no big fan of group projects in the first place; with more than one other person in your group it can sometimes become impossible to schedule a time everyone can meet. This is increasingly true for students in the Honors college, as we are all so busy all the time. Add a student who works two jobs and an architecture major and it seemed downright impossible. Fortunately, we're making it work. I'm still apprehensive about our video, since time is of the essence, but I believe it will all turn out.
Friday, October 28
The Good Life
Our recent class discussions on the good life were extremely interesting to me. I've always thought of a "good life" as being a state of mind and a personal decision, and I still stand by that. It's interesting that cultures tried to designate specific life paths as being "the good life" because to me, that's one hundred percent subjective to each individual person, and it's not something anyone can just or gauge.
Hearing everyone's views on what makes a good life was intriguing, and they weren't exactly what I expected either. I feel that society can't give us an idea of what a good life is, because that varies from person to person. For example, when I tell everyone about my homework workload, everyone says, "Oh, that's a bummer." But to me, learning is great, and I don't mind the homework or the projects. To me, that's part of a good life. That's not the case for everyone. Since everyone's views on a good life can vary so drastically, society can't project on us what exactly a "good life" is; there wouldn't be much agreement on it because people see things so differently. I feel like society tries to push on us some things that could make up slivers of our good lives (i.e. cars, computers, etc.) or even tries to sell us a "modern model life" kind of thing. However, a modern model life and a good life can be two completely different things. It's kind of like today's "standards" in a way. By today's standards, you'll only be happy if you have a nice house, seven cars, the latest and best technology, beauty, brains, the answers to life's unanswerable questions, etc. But society isn't promoting an idea of a "good life," in my opinion; at least not by the standards that the authors of our readings held a good life to. To them, a good life wasn't just a life that was decent; it was a specific way of being. I feel that society today focuses on the former (a life that's decent) instead of the latter (a specific way of being).
Friday, October 21
Midterm Response Journal
I was very excited for this class when I heard about the literature we would be reading. I think learning about ancient worlds is fascinating so getting the chance to read pieces that came from those time periods was very intriguing for me. I have really enjoyed the literature so far. I sometimes have to push myself extremely hard to read the readings for whatever day, because I feel like there aren't many negative consequences to not doing the reading. But I do really enjoy what I have read. (Adriana, I've thought about consequences for not reading a few times as the course has gone on. When I wrote the syllabus, I decided to assign the journals instead of giving quizzes or tests. There are pros and cons to both approaches. I've realized that it would be possible to skip the readings once in a while if you just keep quiet, and some people probably do that. But the discussions have been active enough that I think most everyone is doing the reading every day. I appreciate that you have pushed yourself to keep up. MSH)
I also very much enjoy the classroom dynamic. I think we have a very bright group in this class, and I always look forward to the "circle time" in which we discuss the literature in depth. There are a wide variety of thinkers in this class, which pushes me to think about things I hadn't previously been thinking about or wouldn't have thought of. I know we have our definite strong speakers which engage the class every time, but I like that it seems almost everyone has given input at one point or another.
I feel like this class is a very good definition of what an honors class at Ball State should be. I was very excited at the proposition of having classes based on discussion and not being "taught at" instead of "taught with." I think this class accomplishes that perfectly. Mr. Hartman doesn't lecture us or give us set points we have to memorize; instead, we expand our thinking through discussion, which, in my opinion, is the perfect way to learn, and one that suits me very well. I enjoyed the parody project (I think I liked listening to everyone else's more than I liked making mine, but that was just because I was so indecisive about what to do until it got into a time crunch), and I liked the chance to do something that expressed a bit of creativity. I haven't really had the chance to do that in the rest of my college courses I'm currently taking, so being able to use that part of my brain once more was a very enjoyable activity.
I'm very excited to be taking the 202 course with Mr. Hartman, and I hope we continue to have the great group we have this semester. The people and professor of this course have really helped me to expand my thinking and have really pushed me to new heights.
Friday, October 14
Antigone
I was intrigued by our discussion of Antigone on Monday and considered the questions posed for a great deal. I was extremely interested in finding out how the Ancient Greeks felt about suicide. I know, as a Catholic, many Christian denominations (especially Catholicism) take a very strong stance against suicide. They believe that if a person commits suicide, they will not be able to enter the kingdom of Heaven. It seemed to me that if Antigone was so utterly concerned with her brother's soul and took many risks in making sure his soul crossed over the river Styx that she should be also concerned with the destiny of her own soul. Since she committed suicide in a cave with no one around, no one would be able to give her proper burial rites either; she wouldn't be able to cross over the river Styx.
It turns out the Ancient Greeks had a very relaxed attitude toward suicide. I couldn't find much information explaining this, but it seems like it was a part of their culture that no one seemed to care much about. They even had something called "forced suicide" where someone was--shocker--forced to commit suicide. In a forced suicide situation, someone will commit suicide in order to avoid a punishment they perceive to be worse, like having friends or family members tortured or executed. A person also sometimes given the choice to "honorably" commit suicide or else they would be publicly executed. It was usually reserved for aristocrats and was seen as an honorable way to die. Authorities would provide the offender with hemlock to drink or fall on their own sword. The famous philosopher Socrates was killed in this manner, as well as the emperor Nero, Marc Antony, and Brutus.
However, Antigone's death didn't seem, to me anyway, to be of the "honorable" type. I agree with Christine that she just seemed to have a will to die, and maybe in the end didn't care about the fate of her soul.
Friday, October 7
Agamemnon
I really enjoyed our class discussion over the questions on morality in the story of Agamemnon. It was interesting to hear people's points of view on the different topics. One thing that surprised me was the number of people who thought Agamemnon was justified in killing his daughter. To me, as I shared in class, killing of any kind is wrong. I do not agree that using his daughter as a sacrifice was a good reason for his actions. However, when the class began this discussion, I had to admit I could see two ways.
I had to think of this question in two contexts: me as a 21st century American and me as a member of the Ancient Greek civilization. The 21st century version of me was 100% opposed to the killing of Agamemnon's daughter. I believe that murder is wrong, and that there is no reason good enough to allow someone to take another's life. No one has authority over ending another person's life; it is not for them to decide when someone's life should be finished. Because I believe so firmly in this, I would not budge in saying that Agamemnon was completely wrong in his actions, and I don't blame Clytemnestra for being so angry with him (although I obviously don't believe her course of action was right either).
But when I think about myself as a member of their Ancient Greek culture, I become a little stumped. I suppose I would listen to the gods if they told me that they wanted me to do that. I would want to please the gods and I would have grown up being told to obey the gods. Therefore, I would have assumed whatever they told me was a proper course of action.
Although I'm confused as to why a god would order you to kill anyone (especially a family member) in the first place, I must say this question was a thinker. I guess it's impossible for me to say what I would have done in Agamemnon's situation or even whether I think he did the right thing or not, because I have not grown up in his culture and cannot separate my ideals from the ideals an Ancient Greek would have held.
Friday, September 30
Bible
It is absolutely amazing to me how full of faith Job is when he is confronted with all of the obstacles put in front of him. Having absolute faith like that has always been something I marvel at, even if it's not to the degree to which Job displays. Blindly believing that God always has a perfect plan that will work out for me in the end has always just been something I struggle with. I have a problem with not being in control in any circumstance, especially when it comes to the bigger picture of my life. I want to know just exactly where I'm supposed to end up and what exactly I need to do in order to get there. If I were ever faced with the obstacles Job had to endure, I would have a such a hard time continuing to believe in the goodness of God's plan. I would completely abandon any hope that He was looking out for me or that these trials would lead me somewhere. It's so much easier to be mad at God when bad things happen than it is to believe that He's letting them happen for a reason.
I guess that's why never losing faith has always been such a mesmerizing topic for me. Because it seems so easy to just let go--to jump ship, to abandon all hope, to turn your back and go your separate way. And yet there are so many people I see, even in my daily life, who don't take the easy way out. Who continue to hold on and believe, to submerge themselves in the idea that God will provide, and everything that happens is happening for a reason. That's something I always try to tell myself (Everything happens for a reason), but I feel like that won't do in cases like Job's. There has to be something stronger holding you to your beliefs than just the mantra that everything happens for a reason. I've yet to discover what that is for me but I hope I can find out soon.
Friday, September 23
Creation Myths
I wish I could have read the creation myths before being fazed by a primarily Christian society. When I read these, I find myself thinking about how impossible each one sounds, and how plausible Genesis sounds in comparison. But in reality, the events in Genesis sound just as improbable as a man's genitalia birthing a goddess out of sea foam. It's just my upbringing that makes the other myths seem absurd. It seems that we all laugh at the apparently ridiculous events of the other myths and don't take the time to realize the generally accepted creation myth found in Genesis can be just as ridiculous sounding to someone who hasn't lived in a culture that accepts it to be true. When I hear a myth that sounds unlike the rest, I immediately don't take it seriously. I wonder if I had never had the chance to become accustomed to a certain story if my reaction would be the same.
I think the number of creation myths the world has produced certainly says something about the human nature. Clearly humans are naturally curious and like to know exactly why things are the way they are. Because of this, each society in existence (or so it seems) has created some sort of creation story to give themselves peace of mind. Who knows if what they think is actually true, but having something to believe in is a comforting feeling. It's amazing that the human mind can see something objectively and know that it might not be certain or accurate, but still believe it anyway. I'm wondering how well people took to these stories when they were first conceived. I can just imagine someone trying to spread these stories and just being shot down because of the absurdity they contain. If someone came up to me on the street back in the day and said, "I think this is how the Earth was formed..." and told me any one of these stories, I'd think they were crazy. So it's interesting to me to wonder how these stories finally got a grasp on their respective societies.
Friday, September 16
The Odyssey
Today in class, it was discusses as to whether or not it was necessary for the maids to all be killed along with the suitors. Many people agreed that it was unnecessarily cruel and unjust; since the maids weren't discussed much, we as readers don't even know if all of them were unfaithful to Odysseus or deserved this fate. Several people mentioned that they didn't agree that the maids had earned a death that was worse than the suitors' deaths. Hanging was perceived at that time as a severely traitorous death and was hugely disgraceful. While I can see how their deaths may seem excessively cruel and unnecessary, I can also see why Odysseus acted in the way that he did.
Odysseus is a man who obviously requires the utmost loyalty from everyone he surrounds himself with (as Daniella mentioned in class). It was discussed in the book that several maids were sleeping with the suitors who came to visit Penelope--welcoming the men who came to undo Odysseus and all he had. But they did this deceitfully; the suitors, as dishonorable as they were, were outright and honest with their treason. These maids, however, kept their traitorous actions a secret. They said one thing and did another, talking out of both sides of their mouth. To me, this is way worse than being upfront and honest about what you're doing. I've always felt that being mean behind someone's back is so much worse than saying it to their face. It's the ultimate deceit, and Odysseus would never stand for it. Because of this, I feel that his actions were definitely within his character. While I may have not acted the same way myself, I do believe this is the only way a man like Odysseus would have responded to disloyalty in his own house.
Friday, September 9
The Odyssey
I really enjoyed our discussion in class today, both about the women in The Odyssey and the trials Odysseus faces during the story. I especially enjoyed listening to all the comments about how the women in this story are portrayed. I find it interesting that half the class thinks that women are portrayed positively while others think they're portrayed negatively, almost for the same reasons. I was of the notion that the women were portrayed as strong characters because of their cunning and craftiness, and how they appeared much smarter than some of their male counterparts. But it was also brought up that, because of this, the women seem manipulative and, to a point, almost evil. It makes me wonder about the influence of women in Homer's own life: whether the women he encountered were forceful and smart, or manipulative and conniving. I also wonder how he wanted the women to be portrayed: whether he wished for them to be powerful in a positive or negative sense.
I also liked my group's discussion about the trials Odysseus faces. Devin pointed out how Odysseus seems to mature as he endures these trials, and I believe that's true. He seems to be selfish and foolhardy in the first few trials; he doesn't listen to the advice of his men, and he consistently does things to anger the gods or ignore the advice he's given. Because of this, his men face the consequences. If he hadn't been so prideful, his men needn't have died. He ignores his men's advice and continues to boast and brag about his mighty deeds. Because he felt the need to tell the Kyklopes who he was, his men were doomed to die. To me, that is extremely juvenile and rash. But as he faces more trials, and the chances of him reaching his home seem slimmer and slimmer, he seems to sober up and forget his adrenaline-seeking ways. That is one thing I really like about Odysseus; he could have stayed on Kirke's or Kalypso's islands and lived out his days, but he wants nothing more than to return home. I find this to be completely endearing.
Friday, September 2
The Odyssey
The difference in reading the story of Gilgamesh to reading the story of Odysseus is huge, in my opinion. In my last journal, I wrote about how Gilgamesh wasn't much of a hero. I see that even more so after reading about the character of Odysseus. Odysseus fits the mold of "epic hero" pretty soundly in my book. Not only does he go out and do good, fighting alongside his friends and brothers (figuratively speaking) and protecting them to his best abilities, but he's also a good person. Everyone we meet throughout the story has nothing but positive things to say about him (except maybe Poseidon...). He appears to be a wonderful king, who doesn't just rule over the land but is actually quite loving towards his people, even if they take that kind nature for granted. It is also apparent that he has a great love for his family. Though he may have slept with Kalypso, he desires nothing more than to return home to his wife and child. As for Gilgamesh, I'm not sure that we even hear him mention family; if he does, it's in passing and definitely not with the passion and perseverance with which Odysseus speaks of his own family. Gilgamesh is also quite harsh toward his people, who completely fear him and cry out for the intercession of the gods to stop his madness. Gilgamesh seems much more self-absorbed than Odysseus does, in my opinion.
Another thing I've noticed is the role of women in this story. In Gilgamesh's tale, we read nothing but how wicked the women were. In this tale, however, I believe several of the women to be strong and confident. Athena, of course, is the first one to come to mind. She does everything she can to save Odysseus and help Telemachus, even to the point of almost bossing her father around! She seems to know all, and uses her immortal status to help those weaker than herself. But she also can show a darker side; she's not afraid to stand up for something, as seen when she punishes some of the warriors for defacing her shrine. She is very powerful, and the vibe I get from her role in this story is that she gets more respect than Zeus sometimes. I also believe Penelope is quite strong. Now, I understand this could be a point of contention. True, she hasn't told the suitors to get out, and yes she does break down when her son leaves her. But she shows cunning in her plan with the burial shroud (even if that is uncovered later), and she most definitely could have broken down before and married one of the suitors just to end this ridiculousness. But she doesn't. She stays faithful to Odysseus and stands her ground.
Because of these two factors, I find myself enjoying The Odyssey much more than I enjoyed the story of Gilgamesh.
Friday, August 26
The Epic of Gilgamesh
Thus far, I personally am not too fond of our epic "hero." Gilgamesh doesn't seem to me like he has earned the word "hero" as of yet. Maybe I'm just being too hard on him, but calling dibs on everyone's wives, killing things just because he "had to" and then whining about the outcomes of his personal choices seems to me like he's too immature. As for his newfound quest for eternal life, I don't think it's anything noble either--I think he has seen death up close and personal for the first time and it truly frightened him. He doesn't like the idea of having to die, whether writhing in pain like Enkidu did or dying like a man in battle, and he's too weak to actually confront death like everyone else has to. Maybe he considers the idea below him. He's 2/3 god; in his mind, he shouldn't be subjected to the trivial life of a mortal. He's definitely got an ego on him, I think.
Because of this, I don't think his quest for eternal life is going to be a tribute to his good friend. I don't think he would use his eternal life as punishment for himself for allowing his soul mate to die. I think he would use his eternal life to defer the pain of dying. And maybe he thinks he's earned it. After all, he went through the same trials as Enkidu and the gods didn't subject him, Gilgamesh, to death. Maybe in his eyes, he was greater than Enkidu and therefore deserves a greater prize--cheating death.
It's quite possible that I'm just being a horrible skeptical pessimistic about all of this. But considering Gilgamesh's track record, he has not proven himself to really be much of a good person. I'm one of those people who believes that people can't change overnight. Maybe what Gilgamesh has gone through has been enough to change him for the better, but I really don't think he's gotten there yet. Maybe in due time, he will change into a better person. But for now, I have a problem thinking that his motives behind finding everlasting life are pure and good-hearted.
Friday, December 9
KoranOne thing I found very refreshing during our class discussion on Friday was that everyone seemed very open to the idea of another religion that we as Americans don't have as much exposure to. I've found that a lot of people have a very negative attitude towards other religions, Islam in particular, when they don't know much about the specifics of a religion. Americans specifically have shown the world very intolerant behavior, from churches like Westboro Baptist Church to the minister in Florida who was going to burn the Koran in protest of the mosque being built in New York. I'm not sure where misconceptions about Islam originated, but listening to the things that people say about Muslims is laughable. Most people don't seem to understand is that Muslim extremists aren't the examples of Muslims we should be referencing for our information about the religion. This was always a huge pet peeve of mine: seeing intolerance of other religions stem from things that aren't true. Muslim extremists aren't following the Koran like it was intended to be followed. If you go to a mosque and talk to the Muslims there, they will tell you the same thing--terrorists who do things in "the name of Islam" is a deep source of shame to them. If people would take the time to actually learn about other religions before judging them, I think the world would be a so much better place. I don't understand why an issue like religion is such a big deal. People seem to concern themselves too much with what other people are doing, and don't realize how ridiculous they're acting in the process. So what if someone wants to worship in a different way than you? Is it hurting you to let them have their own religion? Forcing your beliefs on someone else or picking a war over how someone views their god is a ridiculous thing. I have never understood that aspect of the world. I simply don't understand why people can't let others be. Yes, as a Christian I personally don't follow the Islam faith. But that doesn't mean I should assault those who do--everyone should be allowed to worship as they choose without fear of persecution.
Friday, December 2
Essay ResponseI enjoyed Malia's essay very much. It is a very unique subject topic, something very different from what I think most of the class did. Malia explored the implications of Sappho's poetry in both ancient and modern times. Sappho wrote about love in most of her poems, but not in the same way of poet's today. Many people who read Sappho's poetry may read homosexual undertones into her work, or try to dig deeper meanings into her poetry than may really be present. This action can be seen even in our own Honors 201 class when we tried to pull out hidden symbolism and deduce what each line meant. In reality, as Malia explains, the focus of Sappho's poetry should not be what kind of love--man and woman, father and daughter, or woman and woman--that Sappho wrote about. The aspect of her poetry that the world should focus on is love in general. Sappho obviously thought love was extremely important, since that was all she wrote about, but her poetry has been lost in the implications that society has put into her writing.
Malia uses the musical RENT as an example of how things like homosexuality can mask the true meaning of a work of art. RENT is a show about living in the moment, but society runs from a musical with a brilliant message because some of the main characters exhibit homosexuality. The work as a whole is very open about sex and relationships, but that is far from the focus. Malia also mentions that although America may seem to be shirking the fear of homosexuality it previously had, but in all reality, we as a society still have a long way to go.
The essay brings up several interesting points that I had not previously thought about. Although the example of RENT comes on suddenly and could be tied in more explicitly, it is a very good example that ties in our modern culture with that of Sappho's. The essay turns slightly persuasive in areas, telling the reader about the pitfalls of American culture and how homophobia is something we should be truly avoiding. The ending is sudden and doesn't do the paper justice, but I know that is an easy fix. A few transitional sentences could be helpful for this paper overall, but this paper is very interesting and I loved reading it.
Friday, November 18
Museum ResponseI'm really not a big fan of art museums. I like art, and I like looking at art that other people create. But for some reason, art museums are not the same. The art museum on campus did not change that at all. I was surprise at how random the museum seemed to be. Sure, the sculptures were all in one place and the tribal art work was too, but the actual paintings themselves seemed to be thrown together in a hodge podge collection.
I did like how the wall color of each room contributed something to the art work. The wall color in the room with tribal art was a deep red clay color, which I thought tied into the artwork very well. It created a warm feeling in the room and complemented the wood of the sculptures. The room with paintings was a plain cream color, which fit well as it didn't detract from the complexities and details of the paintings.
My favorite piece of the museum was the hanging bottle cap fixture in the sculpture court. It didn't fit in with the bronzed aged sculptures; it was a flash of modern in a dated room. From that aspect it wasn't great (although I'm sure some people liked the mixed atmosphere) but it was such a creative piece that it really captured my attention. It was brilliantly white, which made it stand out as well. I thought it was a very interesting piece.
I really liked the architecture of the building. It was very Gothic, which is a style that I'm a fan of. Even though it looks very cold and imposing, it drew me in. It was very cool to look out over the quad from the entrance to the museum and think that we'll be graduating on those very grounds in less than four years.
Friday, November 11
The AeneidI think I have come to my conclusion and thoughts on how Virgil presents women (or at least Dido) in The Aeneid. It seems to me that Virgil doesn't have a great opinion of women. I think he presents Dido in a weak, dramatic, and obsessive way. As we discussed in class, both Aeneas and Dido faced the same challenge: whether to stick with each other and choose love, or to do what was right for their kingdoms and choose duty. Clearly Aeneas chose duty; even in the face of temptation, he remains strong and remembers his devotion to his position (as a man should, Virgil may be thinking). But Dido is another story completely. Since she is a woman, she is weak. She cannot even think to her duty now that she has fallen hopelessly "in love" with Aeneas. She can only think of how her life would suffer terribly if he were not in it (even though he hasn't been in her life until just now and she was doing just fine). She chooses her love over her duty, an attribute which was surely looked down upon in those days I would assume (since kings married for power, not for love, etc.). Because of this, Dido is presented in a manner that makes her seem weaker than Aeneas. I do not see any sympathy for her playing a victim here. I see her being, as someone said in class today, just annoying. She is the epitome of the traditional "helpless woman" who cannot survive without her man by her side.
I do understand that she was influenced by the gods. However, I don't believe the gods made her choose this devastating route. She could have reacted differently to their plans, but she chose this drastic measure as a means to solve her problems, and I really don't have any pity for her. As Jacob said, her death really wasn't regrettable at all.
Critical Essay Topic: For my critical essay, I will be comparing and contrasting the Greek and Roman gods. Already in my research I have seen that they not only go by different names, but are portrayed differently and even have different things that are important to them. I might also look into how they are presented in literature.
Friday, November 4
The Good LifeCan you ask a question about something you don't understand? [MH]
This week has been extremely difficult for me. I have always been very interested in different ways of thinking like our readings provide and discuss, but I just cannot for the life of me understand them. I have not been able to comprehend most of what this week's readings have been about, and I am lost in our class discussions. For this reason, I am struggling to find something to write this journal about. The topic at hand does not hold my interest, mostly because it is such a foreign thing to me that I just cannot understand it. It is not as though I do not want to learn about this or that I am deliberately slacking off, it is simply a comprehension issue. I would much rather be reading things from Ancient Greece or Rome. Literature like that falls more in line with my way of thinking, I guess, and is light years easier for me to understand.
Since I do not have much to say on that topic, I guess I will discuss my group's efforts in completing our presentation. When I was first approached about the idea of a double group project involving a movie, I was more than hesitant to agree. For one, I am no big fan of group projects in the first place; with more than one other person in your group it can sometimes become impossible to schedule a time everyone can meet. This is increasingly true for students in the Honors college, as we are all so busy all the time. Add a student who works two jobs and an architecture major and it seemed downright impossible. Fortunately, we're making it work. I'm still apprehensive about our video, since time is of the essence, but I believe it will all turn out.
Friday, October 28
The Good LifeOur recent class discussions on the good life were extremely interesting to me. I've always thought of a "good life" as being a state of mind and a personal decision, and I still stand by that. It's interesting that cultures tried to designate specific life paths as being "the good life" because to me, that's one hundred percent subjective to each individual person, and it's not something anyone can just or gauge.
Hearing everyone's views on what makes a good life was intriguing, and they weren't exactly what I expected either. I feel that society can't give us an idea of what a good life is, because that varies from person to person. For example, when I tell everyone about my homework workload, everyone says, "Oh, that's a bummer." But to me, learning is great, and I don't mind the homework or the projects. To me, that's part of a good life. That's not the case for everyone. Since everyone's views on a good life can vary so drastically, society can't project on us what exactly a "good life" is; there wouldn't be much agreement on it because people see things so differently. I feel like society tries to push on us some things that could make up slivers of our good lives (i.e. cars, computers, etc.) or even tries to sell us a "modern model life" kind of thing. However, a modern model life and a good life can be two completely different things. It's kind of like today's "standards" in a way. By today's standards, you'll only be happy if you have a nice house, seven cars, the latest and best technology, beauty, brains, the answers to life's unanswerable questions, etc. But society isn't promoting an idea of a "good life," in my opinion; at least not by the standards that the authors of our readings held a good life to. To them, a good life wasn't just a life that was decent; it was a specific way of being. I feel that society today focuses on the former (a life that's decent) instead of the latter (a specific way of being).
Friday, October 21
Midterm Response JournalI was very excited for this class when I heard about the literature we would be reading. I think learning about ancient worlds is fascinating so getting the chance to read pieces that came from those time periods was very intriguing for me. I have really enjoyed the literature so far. I sometimes have to push myself extremely hard to read the readings for whatever day, because I feel like there aren't many negative consequences to not doing the reading. But I do really enjoy what I have read.
(Adriana, I've thought about consequences for not reading a few times as the course has gone on. When I wrote the syllabus, I decided to assign the journals instead of giving quizzes or tests. There are pros and cons to both approaches. I've realized that it would be possible to skip the readings once in a while if you just keep quiet, and some people probably do that. But the discussions have been active enough that I think most everyone is doing the reading every day. I appreciate that you have pushed yourself to keep up. MSH)
I also very much enjoy the classroom dynamic. I think we have a very bright group in this class, and I always look forward to the "circle time" in which we discuss the literature in depth. There are a wide variety of thinkers in this class, which pushes me to think about things I hadn't previously been thinking about or wouldn't have thought of. I know we have our definite strong speakers which engage the class every time, but I like that it seems almost everyone has given input at one point or another.
I feel like this class is a very good definition of what an honors class at Ball State should be. I was very excited at the proposition of having classes based on discussion and not being "taught at" instead of "taught with." I think this class accomplishes that perfectly. Mr. Hartman doesn't lecture us or give us set points we have to memorize; instead, we expand our thinking through discussion, which, in my opinion, is the perfect way to learn, and one that suits me very well. I enjoyed the parody project (I think I liked listening to everyone else's more than I liked making mine, but that was just because I was so indecisive about what to do until it got into a time crunch), and I liked the chance to do something that expressed a bit of creativity. I haven't really had the chance to do that in the rest of my college courses I'm currently taking, so being able to use that part of my brain once more was a very enjoyable activity.
I'm very excited to be taking the 202 course with Mr. Hartman, and I hope we continue to have the great group we have this semester. The people and professor of this course have really helped me to expand my thinking and have really pushed me to new heights.
Friday, October 14
AntigoneI was intrigued by our discussion of Antigone on Monday and considered the questions posed for a great deal. I was extremely interested in finding out how the Ancient Greeks felt about suicide. I know, as a Catholic, many Christian denominations (especially Catholicism) take a very strong stance against suicide. They believe that if a person commits suicide, they will not be able to enter the kingdom of Heaven. It seemed to me that if Antigone was so utterly concerned with her brother's soul and took many risks in making sure his soul crossed over the river Styx that she should be also concerned with the destiny of her own soul. Since she committed suicide in a cave with no one around, no one would be able to give her proper burial rites either; she wouldn't be able to cross over the river Styx.
It turns out the Ancient Greeks had a very relaxed attitude toward suicide. I couldn't find much information explaining this, but it seems like it was a part of their culture that no one seemed to care much about. They even had something called "forced suicide" where someone was--shocker--forced to commit suicide. In a forced suicide situation, someone will commit suicide in order to avoid a punishment they perceive to be worse, like having friends or family members tortured or executed. A person also sometimes given the choice to "honorably" commit suicide or else they would be publicly executed. It was usually reserved for aristocrats and was seen as an honorable way to die. Authorities would provide the offender with hemlock to drink or fall on their own sword. The famous philosopher Socrates was killed in this manner, as well as the emperor Nero, Marc Antony, and Brutus.
However, Antigone's death didn't seem, to me anyway, to be of the "honorable" type. I agree with Christine that she just seemed to have a will to die, and maybe in the end didn't care about the fate of her soul.
Friday, October 7
AgamemnonI really enjoyed our class discussion over the questions on morality in the story of Agamemnon. It was interesting to hear people's points of view on the different topics. One thing that surprised me was the number of people who thought Agamemnon was justified in killing his daughter. To me, as I shared in class, killing of any kind is wrong. I do not agree that using his daughter as a sacrifice was a good reason for his actions. However, when the class began this discussion, I had to admit I could see two ways.
I had to think of this question in two contexts: me as a 21st century American and me as a member of the Ancient Greek civilization. The 21st century version of me was 100% opposed to the killing of Agamemnon's daughter. I believe that murder is wrong, and that there is no reason good enough to allow someone to take another's life. No one has authority over ending another person's life; it is not for them to decide when someone's life should be finished. Because I believe so firmly in this, I would not budge in saying that Agamemnon was completely wrong in his actions, and I don't blame Clytemnestra for being so angry with him (although I obviously don't believe her course of action was right either).
But when I think about myself as a member of their Ancient Greek culture, I become a little stumped. I suppose I would listen to the gods if they told me that they wanted me to do that. I would want to please the gods and I would have grown up being told to obey the gods. Therefore, I would have assumed whatever they told me was a proper course of action.
Although I'm confused as to why a god would order you to kill anyone (especially a family member) in the first place, I must say this question was a thinker. I guess it's impossible for me to say what I would have done in Agamemnon's situation or even whether I think he did the right thing or not, because I have not grown up in his culture and cannot separate my ideals from the ideals an Ancient Greek would have held.
Friday, September 30
BibleIt is absolutely amazing to me how full of faith Job is when he is confronted with all of the obstacles put in front of him. Having absolute faith like that has always been something I marvel at, even if it's not to the degree to which Job displays. Blindly believing that God always has a perfect plan that will work out for me in the end has always just been something I struggle with. I have a problem with not being in control in any circumstance, especially when it comes to the bigger picture of my life. I want to know just exactly where I'm supposed to end up and what exactly I need to do in order to get there. If I were ever faced with the obstacles Job had to endure, I would have a such a hard time continuing to believe in the goodness of God's plan. I would completely abandon any hope that He was looking out for me or that these trials would lead me somewhere. It's so much easier to be mad at God when bad things happen than it is to believe that He's letting them happen for a reason.
I guess that's why never losing faith has always been such a mesmerizing topic for me. Because it seems so easy to just let go--to jump ship, to abandon all hope, to turn your back and go your separate way. And yet there are so many people I see, even in my daily life, who don't take the easy way out. Who continue to hold on and believe, to submerge themselves in the idea that God will provide, and everything that happens is happening for a reason. That's something I always try to tell myself (Everything happens for a reason), but I feel like that won't do in cases like Job's. There has to be something stronger holding you to your beliefs than just the mantra that everything happens for a reason. I've yet to discover what that is for me but I hope I can find out soon.
Friday, September 23
Creation MythsI wish I could have read the creation myths before being fazed by a primarily Christian society. When I read these, I find myself thinking about how impossible each one sounds, and how plausible Genesis sounds in comparison. But in reality, the events in Genesis sound just as improbable as a man's genitalia birthing a goddess out of sea foam. It's just my upbringing that makes the other myths seem absurd. It seems that we all laugh at the apparently ridiculous events of the other myths and don't take the time to realize the generally accepted creation myth found in Genesis can be just as ridiculous sounding to someone who hasn't lived in a culture that accepts it to be true. When I hear a myth that sounds unlike the rest, I immediately don't take it seriously. I wonder if I had never had the chance to become accustomed to a certain story if my reaction would be the same.
I think the number of creation myths the world has produced certainly says something about the human nature. Clearly humans are naturally curious and like to know exactly why things are the way they are. Because of this, each society in existence (or so it seems) has created some sort of creation story to give themselves peace of mind. Who knows if what they think is actually true, but having something to believe in is a comforting feeling. It's amazing that the human mind can see something objectively and know that it might not be certain or accurate, but still believe it anyway. I'm wondering how well people took to these stories when they were first conceived. I can just imagine someone trying to spread these stories and just being shot down because of the absurdity they contain. If someone came up to me on the street back in the day and said, "I think this is how the Earth was formed..." and told me any one of these stories, I'd think they were crazy. So it's interesting to me to wonder how these stories finally got a grasp on their respective societies.
Friday, September 16
The OdysseyToday in class, it was discusses as to whether or not it was necessary for the maids to all be killed along with the suitors. Many people agreed that it was unnecessarily cruel and unjust; since the maids weren't discussed much, we as readers don't even know if all of them were unfaithful to Odysseus or deserved this fate. Several people mentioned that they didn't agree that the maids had earned a death that was worse than the suitors' deaths. Hanging was perceived at that time as a severely traitorous death and was hugely disgraceful. While I can see how their deaths may seem excessively cruel and unnecessary, I can also see why Odysseus acted in the way that he did.
Odysseus is a man who obviously requires the utmost loyalty from everyone he surrounds himself with (as Daniella mentioned in class). It was discussed in the book that several maids were sleeping with the suitors who came to visit Penelope--welcoming the men who came to undo Odysseus and all he had. But they did this deceitfully; the suitors, as dishonorable as they were, were outright and honest with their treason. These maids, however, kept their traitorous actions a secret. They said one thing and did another, talking out of both sides of their mouth. To me, this is way worse than being upfront and honest about what you're doing. I've always felt that being mean behind someone's back is so much worse than saying it to their face. It's the ultimate deceit, and Odysseus would never stand for it. Because of this, I feel that his actions were definitely within his character. While I may have not acted the same way myself, I do believe this is the only way a man like Odysseus would have responded to disloyalty in his own house.
Friday, September 9
The OdysseyI really enjoyed our discussion in class today, both about the women in The Odyssey and the trials Odysseus faces during the story. I especially enjoyed listening to all the comments about how the women in this story are portrayed. I find it interesting that half the class thinks that women are portrayed positively while others think they're portrayed negatively, almost for the same reasons. I was of the notion that the women were portrayed as strong characters because of their cunning and craftiness, and how they appeared much smarter than some of their male counterparts. But it was also brought up that, because of this, the women seem manipulative and, to a point, almost evil. It makes me wonder about the influence of women in Homer's own life: whether the women he encountered were forceful and smart, or manipulative and conniving. I also wonder how he wanted the women to be portrayed: whether he wished for them to be powerful in a positive or negative sense.
I also liked my group's discussion about the trials Odysseus faces. Devin pointed out how Odysseus seems to mature as he endures these trials, and I believe that's true. He seems to be selfish and foolhardy in the first few trials; he doesn't listen to the advice of his men, and he consistently does things to anger the gods or ignore the advice he's given. Because of this, his men face the consequences. If he hadn't been so prideful, his men needn't have died. He ignores his men's advice and continues to boast and brag about his mighty deeds. Because he felt the need to tell the Kyklopes who he was, his men were doomed to die. To me, that is extremely juvenile and rash. But as he faces more trials, and the chances of him reaching his home seem slimmer and slimmer, he seems to sober up and forget his adrenaline-seeking ways. That is one thing I really like about Odysseus; he could have stayed on Kirke's or Kalypso's islands and lived out his days, but he wants nothing more than to return home. I find this to be completely endearing.
Friday, September 2
The OdysseyThe difference in reading the story of Gilgamesh to reading the story of Odysseus is huge, in my opinion. In my last journal, I wrote about how Gilgamesh wasn't much of a hero. I see that even more so after reading about the character of Odysseus. Odysseus fits the mold of "epic hero" pretty soundly in my book. Not only does he go out and do good, fighting alongside his friends and brothers (figuratively speaking) and protecting them to his best abilities, but he's also a good person. Everyone we meet throughout the story has nothing but positive things to say about him (except maybe Poseidon...). He appears to be a wonderful king, who doesn't just rule over the land but is actually quite loving towards his people, even if they take that kind nature for granted. It is also apparent that he has a great love for his family. Though he may have slept with Kalypso, he desires nothing more than to return home to his wife and child. As for Gilgamesh, I'm not sure that we even hear him mention family; if he does, it's in passing and definitely not with the passion and perseverance with which Odysseus speaks of his own family. Gilgamesh is also quite harsh toward his people, who completely fear him and cry out for the intercession of the gods to stop his madness. Gilgamesh seems much more self-absorbed than Odysseus does, in my opinion.
Another thing I've noticed is the role of women in this story. In Gilgamesh's tale, we read nothing but how wicked the women were. In this tale, however, I believe several of the women to be strong and confident. Athena, of course, is the first one to come to mind. She does everything she can to save Odysseus and help Telemachus, even to the point of almost bossing her father around! She seems to know all, and uses her immortal status to help those weaker than herself. But she also can show a darker side; she's not afraid to stand up for something, as seen when she punishes some of the warriors for defacing her shrine. She is very powerful, and the vibe I get from her role in this story is that she gets more respect than Zeus sometimes. I also believe Penelope is quite strong. Now, I understand this could be a point of contention. True, she hasn't told the suitors to get out, and yes she does break down when her son leaves her. But she shows cunning in her plan with the burial shroud (even if that is uncovered later), and she most definitely could have broken down before and married one of the suitors just to end this ridiculousness. But she doesn't. She stays faithful to Odysseus and stands her ground.
Because of these two factors, I find myself enjoying The Odyssey much more than I enjoyed the story of Gilgamesh.
Friday, August 26
The Epic of GilgameshThus far, I personally am not too fond of our epic "hero." Gilgamesh doesn't seem to me like he has earned the word "hero" as of yet. Maybe I'm just being too hard on him, but calling dibs on everyone's wives, killing things just because he "had to" and then whining about the outcomes of his personal choices seems to me like he's too immature. As for his newfound quest for eternal life, I don't think it's anything noble either--I think he has seen death up close and personal for the first time and it truly frightened him. He doesn't like the idea of having to die, whether writhing in pain like Enkidu did or dying like a man in battle, and he's too weak to actually confront death like everyone else has to. Maybe he considers the idea below him. He's 2/3 god; in his mind, he shouldn't be subjected to the trivial life of a mortal. He's definitely got an ego on him, I think.
Because of this, I don't think his quest for eternal life is going to be a tribute to his good friend. I don't think he would use his eternal life as punishment for himself for allowing his soul mate to die. I think he would use his eternal life to defer the pain of dying. And maybe he thinks he's earned it. After all, he went through the same trials as Enkidu and the gods didn't subject him, Gilgamesh, to death. Maybe in his eyes, he was greater than Enkidu and therefore deserves a greater prize--cheating death.
It's quite possible that I'm just being a horrible skeptical pessimistic about all of this. But considering Gilgamesh's track record, he has not proven himself to really be much of a good person. I'm one of those people who believes that people can't change overnight. Maybe what Gilgamesh has gone through has been enough to change him for the better, but I really don't think he's gotten there yet. Maybe in due time, he will change into a better person. But for now, I have a problem thinking that his motives behind finding everlasting life are pure and good-hearted.