What I learned this semester

This semester has been an exciting time for me, in ENGL 2111 and otherwise.  But as for this class, it has been enlightening, challenging, and fun.  I think that the most useful skill I honed in on over the course of this class was my ability to think critically.

Reading the literature throughout this class, a lot of which I was already familiar with, was about a lot more than just reading, listening to a lecture, and having a class discussion.  Professor Hamon challenged me to think deeper about not only the literature, but how it applied to my own life.

Even more importantly than the application of this literature to my own life though, was the challenging of my own beliefs about the world around me, politics, morals, and so much more.  The discussions in this class helped me realize how constant my state of change, learning, and evolution truly is, and that "mastery" of basically anything is almost a joke.  I always considered myself open minded before, but now I am trying a little harder to really challenge where I picked up on the things that I think and why I hold a lot of the beliefs I hold.  I don't necessarily think I am wrong about everything, but I now want to try a little harder to make sure my beliefs are truly my own and not just a product of the small amount of the world I have lived my life in.

Although the semesters tend to blur together, I think that a part of this class will be useful for me not only throughout the rest of my college career, but my life itself.

Hamlet: Other Opinions

In reading my classmates' responses to the prompt asking to describe a character similar to Hamlet, almost everyone chose Oedipus (including me) so I was looking for a classmate who chose something different.  Ashlyn Whetsel chose Achilles which I also agree with, because they are both seeking revenge.  She says "Hamlet is seeking revenge on his uncle, Cladius, for killing his father. In Homer's The Iliad, Achilles is seeking revenge Hector for killing Patroclus." I agree with her but I also think that the both have very different, complex situations and are very different men past that point.  Out of all of my classmates who, like me, compared Hamlet and Oedipus, I think my favorite statement was made by Arin Hagood when she blogged "Even though misfortune has happened throughout their life, at the end of the day they both just wanted the truth. And that led to the destruction of both of them." That was a very eloquent way of describing a similarity between those two characters.

Hamlet & Oedipus

Although they are not identical, Hamlet and Oedipus share many similarities.  Not all, because Hamlet was a unique character in some ways, but some, for sure.  They both possess a tragic flaw and are in a tragedy...and both in a royal family.  I think besides the vengeful nature of their stories though, the similarities in a lot of ways stop there. Oedipus didn't question the world around him as much as Hamlet did and was someone who acted with decisiveness because of that certainty, which is the key difference (among others) between these two characters.

Ethics: Another Perspective

As always, it is interesting to read the posts of my classmates, many of whom have very different worldviews and some with whom I seemingly have more in common with.  I found it interesting that Tionne Bryant said "Hillary Clinton has the most firm ethical standards and  most relativistic and situational ethics."  I very much respect her as a presidential candidate, as a woman, and as a politician, however, I think this statement is interesting because it definitely reflects a different opinion on "situational ethics" than I have.  This is because I think having firm ethical standards is extremely honorable and important because it shows your ability to maintain and uphold strong convictions and values (very important in a leader, and something that for the most part I think Mrs. Clinton maintains.)  However, as I mentioned in my last post, I think situational ethics is something that needs to be treaded carefully and lightly, and one should only sacrifice their ethical and moral convictions in a situation of absolute necessity, otherwise you will lose respect and your subjects will not believe you stand on firm ground.  Campaign season, as I also said, is a time when the line of situational ethics is often toed, because of an absolute effort to gain followers before the title of "leader" is even won, and in that sense you can see it to some extent from every candidate.  So while I do agree with Mr. Bryant on her firm sense of ethical standards, I do not agree that she has the most situational ethics, but only because I think she is a stronger woman than that.  I believe she is capable of discerning when you need to put your convictions aside for the good of a nation, though.
While on the subject of campaign season, and the fuzzy sense of "ethics" that is brings out in our nations presidential hopefuls, it brings me to another statement from a classmate that I wholeheartedly agree with, from Caitlin Smallwood.  She spoke of Trump's sense of situational ethics and said " For the overwhelming situational ethics matched with absolute power and cruelty I thought of Trump who matches situational ethics to a T. In one moment, a promise of respect for the troops the next calling the troops idiots all for the sake of gaining more power which follows the ways of Machiavelli ."  Although I believe campaign season causes a lot of fuzzy ethical ground, Donald Trump does, in my eyes, take it to a new level.  Cruelty, scapegoating, fear-mongering, sexism, and racism...are all par for the course in a Trump campaign rally or speech.  I call this situational ethics because I believe that he knows that the demographic he mainly caters to feeds off of this type of statement, and is frustrated and really connects with the fact that he not only gives them a place to lay blame on the state of our nation, but also offers solutions (whether they are feasible or logical is another story.)  I highly doubt even Mr. Trump himself believes a lot of what he says to be sensible or feasible, but I know that he knows that the population he is speaking to really connects with the message he is throwing out there and so even if it isn't ethical (and is downright cruel) he does what he has to do for the "ends to justify the means" (which in his case is a hopeful presidential win.)

eth·ics

noun

plural noun: ethics; noun: ethics

1. 1.

   moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

To me, someone with ethical standards has a firm set of principles that they believe in and will act on, regardless of the situation.  Someone with firm ethical standards will not shift or hide what they believe is right or wrong depending on who they are around or what kind of impression they are trying to make.  This is why, regardless of how I feel about his policy ideas or political affiliation, I believe that Senator Bernie Sanders has, hands down, the strongest set of ethical standards of anyone I have seen running for public office basically ever.  In 2002, he was publically vocal against invading Iraq.  In the 1960s, Senator Sanders marched for civil rights.  As a mayor in Burlington, Sanders supported the city's first pride parade in the '80s and as a senator voted against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the '90s, proving his very consistent attitude and stance on equal rights regardless of sexuality- Instead of flip-flopping on the issue when it was beneficial for the vote.  Regardless of how you feel about his policies regarding economics, military, etc...I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone with the kind of consistency in a track record that he has.

ethical relativism definition

In ethics, the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period.

-The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

1. situation ethics definition 
2. 
   
3. A system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles —called also situational ethics
4. -Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In a lot of ways, I think that those two types of ethical code are actually useful for anyone in power to have.  When the stake of your country is on the line, I believe that at times you need to look at the situation contextually and make a decision based on the wellbeing of your state, your nation, etc.  This is probably a useful outlook usually for a political leader.  However, I do not think that it is useful to be so swayed by situation that you do not have a strong enough moral compass to have true convictions about what is right and wrong.  Although I believe that sometimes, unfortunately, bad things need to happen to justify the means (including, unfortunately, sometimes people die at war) Ultimately, I believe that if you have a strong moral compass and idea of what is right and wrong and let that be your guide, you're going to be the most effective ruler.  There is no hard and fast rule about when you need to be situationally ethical, I just think that knowing when you need to bend is one thing that if you're cut out to rule, you'll be intuitive about...and this is also why many people are certainly not cut out to lead!

As far as ethical relativism, I think the times you see this strongly are actually times like now- in the middle of campaign season.  This is when politicians, rulers, etc, really seem to mold their beliefs to match the prevailing views of the public.  (A good example would be Hillary Clinton's support of the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the early 2000s and her complete and totally support of equal rights now, at a time when the public opinion has already shifted greatly on this issue.) Unlike situational ethics, which I believe has it's merits, ethical relativism I believe is a cop-out on thinking for yourself.  It is a cop-out on individualistic thinking and progression in our society and I see very little use as a leader in this type of thinking, except as a way to earn the trust and support of a society, as you see during campaigning. 

Hell: Other Perspectives

Reading my classmates views on Hell after writing my own post has been very interesting.
I think Ashlyn Whetsel's observation that "in Hell, compassion can mislead people into wrongly sympathizing with true villains who are deserving of their Hell. As the protagonist’s journey continues, he learns to harden his heart and to distinguish between different levels of sin."  I think this was interesting and can be applied to real life as well.  Sometimes, you may see someone suffering and instantaneously due to compassion you feel sympathetically towards them, but they could have very much caused their situation.  For example, you could see a sad, lonely woman and pity her, without realizing she murdered her family and caused her entire situation.
Misty Miner discussed the difference between positive & negative reinforcement, and said that "Many children today grow up in households and churches that adhere to what is known as "fire and brimstone" teaching. This religious technique is used to control followers with fear, hoping that if (for instance) children and adolescents believe in the concept of eternal damnation, like that displayed in Dante's Inferno, they will abide by the morals and lessons dictated in said religion and religious teachings." 
I agree that it can be a useful motivator, but I also feel that it can be harmful and cause a life of shame and confusion.  Not only shame and confusion, but you also may never fully live up to your real dreams and aspirations because you are tip toeing the line and living an extremely cautious life instead.

Hell

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."
This is what Dante reads as he enters hell.  Hell is eternal- the last stop.Regardless of what mistake got you there, whether you killed your sister or you just lied a lot...get comfortable because this is it.
It's a scary concept, really.  Something I've been thinking about a lot since this topic came to the surface in class is if you really truly believed in Hell with every fiber of your being...like, believed it as surely as you believed you had 10 fingers...a hell like Dante described...would anyone ever sin?  If you actually BELIEVED a place such as this existed and that sinning would send you there?  I find that extremely hard to believe.  Even if you for the most part believe in hell, I don't think you completely do. This is because, to me, if eternal punishment is real, that's one of the (if not the most) scary things I could imagine.  No hope. Just suffering. Forever.  Believing in something like that is completely unimaginable to me, but in my mind, it would lead to a much different life than the one I lead today.
Another thing I found interesting is that people could end up in hell just for being "uncommited"- being neither good or evil..just doing nothing of value.  Tying back to the first point I made in this post...it's crazy to imagine the initiative more people would take and amazing things that could have been accomplished in the world today and how much further we would be as a society if people feared eternal suffering just for being "uncommited!"  I feel like the world would just be DRASTICALLY different.
A lot of this for me is just very hypothetical- as I said, I find believing in such an unforgiving, cruel world extremely hard to imagine.