AP Term- Antithesis

Antithesis-opposition; contrast


Ex:
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for all mankind."
“Too black for heaven, and yet too white for hell.”
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful."

Thinking Outside the Box

In Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and Sartre's "No Exit" play you are able to see the limitations of our thinking. Plato shows how people are narrow-minded because they aren't able to expand their knowledge/opinions as an effect of the society's criticism. In the play "No Exit" Sartre mixes three people's brain processes into each others minds and sets them up in a way that their thoughts would have a great impact on each other.

The men in the cave were oblivious to the chains they had been put in and didn't bother opposing anything that they already "knew". They had to keep their minds conservative and didn't allow themselves to develop a character.  Everything that seemed to be the reality to them was all an allusion which served its purpose of keeping them from thinking for themselves. Each man that was in a cave had their thinking set with restrictions, so they had to filter out anything that was personal (if there were any of those thoughts in their minds) and stick with what they were always told. They were blind to their surroundings and even though they could speak they ultimately couldn't have real thoughts and feelings.

The three people in hell are condemned to have to listen to other's thoughts and aren't able to rely on only themselves. Every move one makes affects the other. They are all just as vulnerable and reliable of each other. When one person had a mental breakdown they all did because in their world they  all had one mind, one body, one brain. Other people cause and influence many of the decisions that others take and limit them to only a certain amount of options. Rarely are they asked for their opinions on situations instead people set ultimatums for each other to make sure that everything goes according to their plans.

The solution I would suggest is to keep a more open mind to what others have to say but avoid thinking that everything they say is correct. Find many sources which you can compare these "facts" with. Instead of only believing that what you say is and will always be right give an opportunity for those who think otherwise to prove their points to you. It will always be evident to you when something you hear doesn't concur with your views, but makes sense.

Plato and Sartre were two different men that wrote about people's limitations on thinking, using different styles. They both suggest that people are being cheated of their own thoughts and rights. In order to better the chances of reducing such problems, people must try to understand others but keep in mind that not everything they hear is reality.

Literature Analysis: Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

1.) Briefly summarize the plot of the novel you read.


The story is about two best friends and companions, that are travelling and looking for work in order to raise enough money for their dream farm. George and Lennie are complete opposite; George is short and strong-minded and Lennie is big and tall with a mental disability. They both make plenty of friends along their adventure and hopes of getting enough money, including Slim and Candy. Since Lennie is so huge, he often ends up destroying the most precious things to him and getting himself and George into much trouble. After arriving at a farm where they've been working, Lennie is left alone with a flirtatious woman (which is the boss' son's wife) and accidentally chokes her to death. Lennie flees to their "meet up place" and waits for George there. When George arrives he tells Lennie their dream farm story and then shoots him in the back of the head. 


2.) Succinctly describe the theme of the novel. Avoid cliches.


The theme of the story is that no matter how high expectations you have for a person, they ultimately make their own decisions and sometimes choose to go against you. Just as Lennie had so much trust, faith, and devotion to George and he repaid him by killing him. 


3.)Describe the author's tone.  Include three excerpts that illustrate your point(s).


The author's tone throughout the story was a mix of pity and sadness. He attempts to show the sentimental aspects of life and occurrences that cause such feelings by demonstrating them through Lennie and George.

• "His anger left him suddenly. He looked across the fire at Lennie's anguished face, and then looked ashamedly at the flames." In this excerpt George had been mean and rude to Lennie for causing trouble. However, after seeing how defenseless and dependent he was of him, George feels bad and the pity is seen for Lennie.
• Candy was always very attached to his dog and his world fell apart the day Carlson shot him, giving off a sad vibe. " A shot sounded in the distance. The men looked quickly at the old man. Every head turned toward him. For a moment he continued to stare at the ceiling. Then he rolled slowly over and faced the wall and lay silent."
• After having killed Lennie, George was in shock and realized what he had done leaking the sadness through his character. "'Yeah. Tha's how.' George's voice was almost a whisper. He looked steadily at his right hand that had held then gun." 

4.) Describe five literary elements/techniques you observed that strengthened your understanding of the theme and/or your sense of the tone.  Include three excerpts that will help your reader understand each one.

• Syntax: Lennie's character was based on a person with a disability which caused him to speak differently from the rest of the characters. His inability to be like the rest of the men in the story caused a sense of pity and deep love towards his character. "I'd pet 'em, and pretty soon they bit my fingers and I pinched their heads a little and then they was dead-- because they was so little."
• Diction: Steinbeck characterized George with a strong, foul-mouthed personality, which caused me pity for Lennie who was stuck with him. Lennie was so dependent of George that he had to stand that sort of mental abuse from his companion and friend. "You crazy son-of-a-bitch. You keep me in hot water all the time. Jus' wanted to feel that girl's dress--jus' wanted to pet it like it was a mouse---Well, how the hell did she know you jus' wanted to feel her dress?"
• Direct Characterization: I was able to distinguish both characters by such great differences they obtained that the author described. George and Lennie were two completely different characters and it was demonstrated in detail at the beginning of the story. " The first man was small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp, strong features. Every part of him was defined: small, strong hands, slender arms, a thin and bony nose. Behind him walked his opposite, a huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, with wide, sloping shoulders; and he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws."
• Indirect Characterization: George an Lennie showed who they really were through their words and actions. That is how I was able to detect that Lennie wasn't like George or any of the other characters in the story. That he was defenseless to the outside world, the one that wasn't made up in his imagination. " Lennie dabbled his big paw in the water and wiggled his fingers so the water arose in little splashes; rings widened across the pool to the other side and came back again. Lennie watched them go. 'Look, George. Look what I done.'"
• Symbolism: The mouse that George had carried in his pocket, dead, which he had crushed symbolized him. He crushed the mouse accidentally, just because he wanted to be able to pet it and comfort it. His luck ended like the mouse when George shot him for his own good  and trying to comfort him. "I'd pet 'em, and pretty soon they bit my fingers and I pinched their heads a little and then they was dead-- because they was so little." "And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head...He pulled the trigger."

My Big Question

What will happen to the world after all humanity/lives are gone?

Hamlet Essay: Performative Utterance

Topic: Using what you've learned about Hamlet the character and Hamlet the play, evaluate the impact of performative utterance on Hamlet and your own sense of self. How does the way Hamlet speaks constitute action in itself? How does it impact the characters and the plot? How does this compare with your own "self-overhearing"? How does the way you reflect on your experience create a sense of memory, expectation, and real-world results? Use the text, your reading/lecture notes, the experience of memorizing the "To be, or not to be" soliloquy, de Boer's paper (and Bloom's/Austin's theoretical frameworks), and the many online and offline discussions we've had.

Hamlet Essay Re-Do

Hamlet, the character is a complex being with even more complex ideas. He is a troubled man trying to deal with life/death but has many worries which ultimately affect the characters and plot of Hamlet. Shakespeare's technique of performative utterance is used as the base of the plot and influences characters to act on others' words. Hamlet's soliloquy "To be, or not to be" and de Boer's, "The Performative Utterance in Hamlet", paper both demonstrate self-utterance and the influence it had on the play.  Self-overhearing was an easy way to detect the direction in which the plot would turn and Hamlet practiced this a lot.

"To be, or not to be" were infamous lines uttered by Hamlet himself. With this soliloquy he reflected on what he believed was the correct way to end the "play". Stating those words aloud described his contemplation of death and murder, while knowing what he would do in the end. He uses performative utterance by describing and stating his desires, making a command to himself to apply his thoughts and turn them into action. Making a decision to follow through with his plans of murder emphasized how he had managed to convince himself to go forth with everything. To finalize this method he ended up implementing his desires and transforming them to realities. 

While achieving what he had set as a goal for himself, Hamlet brought down many of the characters as well. Every spoken word from him had gotten each character closer to their end. Death had traveled from one character to killing off most of them. Had he not convinced himself of performing his revenge, all the characters including himself may have still been alive.

De Boer broke down Hamlet's use of performative utterance in his paper and told us of the reasoning behind the use of this technique. He said, "Those who use performative utterance create new facts in the world in speaking." Just as he said Hamlet allowed his words to become reality. By affecting other characters thoughts as well as his own, Hamlet changed the course of the play. He evolved from an indecisive man to a confident, powerful man by simply stating it out loud. When he said those words to himself he was convinced and ready for anything.

Hamlet expresses his thoughts using self-overhearing, seeming confident and powerful. His self-overhearing impacts what actually occurs in the play, becoming either reality or a failed attempt of it. My idea of self-overhearing however, isn't much of action as it is of pure self-knowledge. Personally, I think self-overhearing isn't about influencing things to occur, but rather learning about yourself. When I express my thoughts aloud, I learn more and more about my attitudes, likes, dislikes, opinions, etc. It's an experience of realizing what I want, but not necessarily anything I will truly end up doing. However, when using it as a technique such as memorizing "to be, or not to be" it would've been the perfect tool. I, on the other hand, find myself feelinguncomfortable with this technique and I failed to use it. I didn't believe at the time that using this method would make any difference. The rare occasions in which I speak to myself, I only analyzed without attempting to make any of my thoughts to reality. 

Both Hamlet and my perspective of self-overhearing have reasoning to support it. It's a matter of how the person decides to view the situation. You may want to create it yourself such as Hamlet tried or just to realize yourself like I tend to do. If you just put your self-overhearing to practice though, you may end up with many consequences that come from the perlocutionary force/effects. The domino theory can be attached to the performative language. With the use of the locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary forces a series of events can be created to develop the plot.

Hamlet Essay

Hamlet's character altogether is thought to be a diverse, strange character which doesn't abide by the rules and ethics of the epic heroes. He is even doubted at times of being an epic hero at all. Contrary to the other heroes seen in epics such as Beowulf he uses a different language when referring to anyone or anything. His intentions backing up his words were more of an honest, hurt man not proud like Beowulf.

Any normal epic hero speaks with great confidence of oneself and seeks props from others. They never think of doubting themselves and are usually proud, somewhat self-centered, men. Hamlet however is the opposite when dealing with his problems and feelings. He uses self-utterance and freely doubts his future actions, making them seem like an even more conflicting problem. In his soliloquy "To Be or Not to Be" Hamlet outwardly expresses his remedies for his problems: murder or suicide. Hamlet states, "by a sleep to say we end the heartache, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to," by this he contemplates death. He quickly contradicts himself because of his character's indecisiveness,"to take arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing end them." Hamlet is not the type that is sure of his decisions, instead he double thinks on what he will say or act on next.

Beowulf's character was a cocky person with too many words to influence his actions. He'd constantly make himself seem greater and more powerful than he truly was. He mentioned plenty of times, of his battles in which he had defeated  others. He was not shy, he was only a typical, proud epic hero. He never wanted to show his weakness unlike Hamlet who allowed all the pressure to interfere with his thought process. Such was the time when he went off on Ophelia because of her love. His  language of love, especially towards Ophelia is of pure forbidden love. He knew that he couldn't be with her because everything in his world was a sin. Instead he would push her away to stop the suffering, but would pull her back in when he realized how much he needed her.

According to Hamlet revenge was what he wanted most because he allowed the anger to build up in himself. Every epic hero has a tragic flaw but it's rarely involved with the concept of revenge. He had decided to follow others' actions and started to think seriously of avenging his father's death when he saw Fortinbras attempting to settle disputes in regards to his own father's death. He is more of a follower than a leader, which opposes an epic hero in every possible way. Unlike him Beowulf led all his explorations taking his men along and only allowing them to enter first if they offered. Instead, Hamlet would probably use one of his men as a shield to protect his own skin.

Hamlet was all but an average epic hero and demonstrated it with his language of self-doubt and untrustworthy love as well as a difference in tragic flaw with epic heroes usually contain. He is differed and contrasted to Beowulf because of his more cowardice character and his lack of confidence. He isn't proud like many others are expected to be.

Piecing Together Technology

Over the course of the semester I have often been overwhelmed at the rate in which we have been fed information. Each and every day we've been set loose to experiment with the broad world of technology. It can take you to the most unexpected places and things may occur by accident but to your benefit. The concept of technology itself is hard to grasp and comprehend. Being set into that strange environment, that I rarely dealt with, was a good learning experience. I was able to expand my mind into the future because technology will ultimately be our future. While being given the initiative I began to be more comfortable with all the new world. I am more aware o0f how life in general works. I freaked out a bit when I thought of relying so much on technology in the future, but when Roy Christopher explained that we would have enough time to master it ("program or be programmed") I felt that a weight had been lifted off my shoulders. Now I know that in order to advance myself and not be trapped by the system I must exceed it and become aware of it.

Roy Christopher's: Digital Natives and Their Digits

Roy Christopher talked to us today about his astonishment and predictions on technology. He stressed many important opinions of his own. 

What I believed was a strong statement he made was that he believed that adults should have more trust in the youth. After all the youth is the future and they deserve to have the trust of the older generations. That way instead of having to take the older generation's advances, we are able to create our own. We would end up developing technology, but it is only for our well-being.

Plus, technology is developing, however, it will not be achieved at an incredibly ridiculous speed. We will be able to keep up with the pace and technology won't be able to take over all of us. We will have to live by the motto, "Program or be Programmed". In that case, if we weaken our knowledge of technology, we will get to a point of confusion like that of the older people nowadays. They are often confused or misled by the advanced technologies because they allowed it to overpower them. If we don't learn now while we can, we may be the subject/experiment to the technology. Therefor, we'd be controlled by a cold, metal machine instead of controlling it.

Roy Christopher's points made an impact on me because he calmed down my worries of being left behind by the technologies that are being quickly developed. Although, I still believe that a world without such a great technological success would be a world of more intelligent people. The people would have to do everything for themselves and learn more about life as a human being, unlike when you go online and allow the computer to learn more about you.