As one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, the United States of America is no stranger of getting involved in foreign affairs. While getting involved with other countries we have gotten ourselves into several wars where we as a country have been affected greatly. Two wars that people often compare are the Vietnam War along with the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these wars have many similarities in the way they started and from the looks of it they might end in the same way.
To many people around the world seeing the difference between the Vietnam War and our current war in the Middle East is easy. One of the most obvious similarities is that both countries’ leaders were communists and America as a whole is pretty much anti-communist. The Vietnam War was started when President Eisenhower decided to send troops to “help” Vietnam after France pulled out. The U.S. government wanted to stop Communists from taking over countries like Vietnam and they thought that the best possible way was to send troops in. The current war in the Middle East started because our President at the time George W. Bush believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and he wanted to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. He also wanted to “free” the people from the wrath of Saddam Hussein. Many people might argue that the war was started because of the American need for oil from the Middle East. At the start of both of these wars a lot of controversy surrounded the American government wondering if they were doing what was in the best interest for the country. In my opinion, it seems as if both of these wars could have been avoided if the government really wanted to. Another major similarity is the role that the media played in both wars. In both the Vietnam War and the current War, we depend highly on the media to fill us in on what is going on. This is mostly due to the lack of government communication with the people on the matter. When looking at the people of the time in both wars, it seems as though most Americans were against the idea of the war. Another similarity we see is the expanded use of what are known as “illegal weapons” in both wars. In Vietnam the U.S. dropped several types of bombs such as the napalm and clusters bombs on the people of Vietnam, similar tactics were being used in the war in the Middle East. One major thing that we find in common is that both wars sought out to establish a democracy in the nations being invaded. In both wars the U.S. government thought that there influence might help the countries involved in the war back on their feet. The U.S. seemed to be on a mission in both of these wars, in the Vietnam War we wanted to prevent the spread of communism and the “domino effect” while in the current war it seems like we are on an operation of fighting terrorism. Many people argue that these claims have yet to be proven.
While many people can see that both of these wars are similar others may argue that they have two different directions. One of the major differences I observed in both wars is where the blame and hatred is put towards. During the time of the Vietnam War a lot of criticism and hatred was shown towards the soldiers who served in the war rather than the government that started it. In the current war in the Middle East our soldiers are shown more support and people point the blame to where it’s due, the government. The Vietnam War was fought against sovereign countries that were trying to spread communism while the war on terror is being fought against different groups and individuals in the country. If you look at both wars as a whole it seems like they have two totally opposite fighting tactics. In the Vietnam War we saw a lot of more straight up fighting but the Iraqi war is surrounded by suicide bombings and other underhanded moves. Today it seems like the media is hiding a lot more of what we are doing rather than in Vietnam where almost everything was televised. Even though both of these wars have several differences they both might end up with the same ending.
The Vietnam War was the first war that the U.S. ever lost and it taught us a lot of valuable lessons. One of the most significant lessons it taught us was not to fight a war that we’re not sure we can win and that applies to the current war today. If we really think about it the U.S. might lose this war and face another Vietnam-like catastrophe. In order to prevent history possibly repeating itself there are many things that we have to do. One of the first things we have to do is to realize why we went to war in the first place. We went to War with Iraq to free them from their “dictator”, but, now that he is gone we should have already pulled out. Many people think that this war is being prolonged for no reason. I think that our government should slowly start to pull out troops and try to minimize more havoc occurring in Iraq. It’s simpler to start a war then to end it and I believe that this one will be hard to end. Another thing is that we as a country have to realize that we made a mistake and continue to support our soldiers no matter what. The soldiers returning from Vietnam felt out of place and I think that now we have learned that it’s important for us to help our soldiers get back to school and work. I think that in order for us to prevent another Vietnam we have to try to make some amends in Iraq and help to reestablish a country that we basically helped to destroy. The people of Vietnam are still dealing with the after-effects of the war and we don’t want to put another third-world country through that. It also seems that if we have any chances of winning this war it might take years and that’s just a waste of money and young Americans. I think that the most important thing for us to remember is that we can’t just run into other countries and try to spread our customs.
Overall, both of these wars seemed never-ending at the time of their start. While it seems like the current war in Iraq might end like Vietnam, we still have some hope. One thing that we have to do as a country is to realize our mistakes and try to fix them as a whole. We also have to keep ourselves from involving with foreign affairs that don’t have anything to do with us. If we continue to try to help other countries then how will they learn to help themselves.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
TTTC Final Assessment
As one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, the United States of America is no stranger of getting involved in foreign affairs. While getting involved with other countries we have gotten ourselves into several wars where we as a country have been affected greatly. Two wars that people often compare are the Vietnam War along with the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these wars have many similarities in the way they started and from the looks of it they might end in the same way.
To many people around the world seeing the difference between the Vietnam War and our current war in the Middle East is easy. One of the most obvious similarities is that both countries’ leaders were communists and America as a whole is pretty much anti-communist. The Vietnam War was started when President Eisenhower decided to send troops to “help” Vietnam after France pulled out. The U.S. government wanted to stop Communists from taking over countries like Vietnam and they thought that the best possible way was to send troops in. The current war in the Middle East started because our President at the time George W. Bush believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and he wanted to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. He also wanted to “free” the people from the wrath of Saddam Hussein. Many people might argue that the war was started because of the American need for oil from the Middle East. At the start of both of these wars a lot of controversy surrounded the American government wondering if they were doing what was in the best interest for the country. In my opinion, it seems as if both of these wars could have been avoided if the government really wanted to. Another major similarity is the role that the media played in both wars. In both the Vietnam War and the current War, we depend highly on the media to fill us in on what is going on. This is mostly due to the lack of government communication with the people on the matter. When looking at the people of the time in both wars, it seems as though most Americans were against the idea of the war. Another similarity we see is the expanded use of what are known as “illegal weapons” in both wars. In Vietnam the U.S. dropped several types of bombs such as the napalm and clusters bombs on the people of Vietnam, similar tactics were being used in the war in the Middle East. One major thing that we find in common is that both wars sought out to establish a democracy in the nations being invaded. In both wars the U.S. government thought that there influence might help the countries involved in the war back on their feet. The U.S. seemed to be on a mission in both of these wars, in the Vietnam War we wanted to prevent the spread of communism and the “domino effect” while in the current war it seems like we are on an operation of fighting terrorism. Many people argue that these claims have yet to be proven.
While many people can see that both of these wars are similar others may argue that they have two different directions. One of the major differences I observed in both wars is where the blame and hatred is put towards. During the time of the Vietnam War a lot of criticism and hatred was shown towards the soldiers who served in the war rather than the government that started it. In the current war in the Middle East our soldiers are shown more support and people point the blame to where it’s due, the government. The Vietnam War was fought against sovereign countries that were trying to spread communism while the war on terror is being fought against different groups and individuals in the country. If you look at both wars as a whole it seems like they have two totally opposite fighting tactics. In the Vietnam War we saw a lot of more straight up fighting but the Iraqi war is surrounded by suicide bombings and other underhanded moves. Today it seems like the media is hiding a lot more of what we are doing rather than in Vietnam where almost everything was televised. Even though both of these wars have several differences they both might end up with the same ending.
The Vietnam War was the first war that the U.S. ever lost and it taught us a lot of valuable lessons. One of the most significant lessons it taught us was not to fight a war that we’re not sure we can win and that applies to the current war today. If we really think about it the U.S. might lose this war and face another Vietnam-like catastrophe. In order to prevent history possibly repeating itself there are many things that we have to do. One of the first things we have to do is to realize why we went to war in the first place. We went to War with Iraq to free them from their “dictator”, but, now that he is gone we should have already pulled out. Many people think that this war is being prolonged for no reason. I think that our government should slowly start to pull out troops and try to minimize more havoc occurring in Iraq. It’s simpler to start a war then to end it and I believe that this one will be hard to end. Another thing is that we as a country have to realize that we made a mistake and continue to support our soldiers no matter what. The soldiers returning from Vietnam felt out of place and I think that now we have learned that it’s important for us to help our soldiers get back to school and work. I think that in order for us to prevent another Vietnam we have to try to make some amends in Iraq and help to reestablish a country that we basically helped to destroy. The people of Vietnam are still dealing with the after-effects of the war and we don’t want to put another third-world country through that. It also seems that if we have any chances of winning this war it might take years and that’s just a waste of money and young Americans. I think that the most important thing for us to remember is that we can’t just run into other countries and try to spread our customs.
Overall, both of these wars seemed never-ending at the time of their start. While it seems like the current war in Iraq might end like Vietnam, we still have some hope. One thing that we have to do as a country is to realize our mistakes and try to fix them as a whole. We also have to keep ourselves from involving with foreign affairs that don’t have anything to do with us. If we continue to try to help other countries then how will they learn to help themselves.
To many people around the world seeing the difference between the Vietnam War and our current war in the Middle East is easy. One of the most obvious similarities is that both countries’ leaders were communists and America as a whole is pretty much anti-communist. The Vietnam War was started when President Eisenhower decided to send troops to “help” Vietnam after France pulled out. The U.S. government wanted to stop Communists from taking over countries like Vietnam and they thought that the best possible way was to send troops in. The current war in the Middle East started because our President at the time George W. Bush believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and he wanted to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. He also wanted to “free” the people from the wrath of Saddam Hussein. Many people might argue that the war was started because of the American need for oil from the Middle East. At the start of both of these wars a lot of controversy surrounded the American government wondering if they were doing what was in the best interest for the country. In my opinion, it seems as if both of these wars could have been avoided if the government really wanted to. Another major similarity is the role that the media played in both wars. In both the Vietnam War and the current War, we depend highly on the media to fill us in on what is going on. This is mostly due to the lack of government communication with the people on the matter. When looking at the people of the time in both wars, it seems as though most Americans were against the idea of the war. Another similarity we see is the expanded use of what are known as “illegal weapons” in both wars. In Vietnam the U.S. dropped several types of bombs such as the napalm and clusters bombs on the people of Vietnam, similar tactics were being used in the war in the Middle East. One major thing that we find in common is that both wars sought out to establish a democracy in the nations being invaded. In both wars the U.S. government thought that there influence might help the countries involved in the war back on their feet. The U.S. seemed to be on a mission in both of these wars, in the Vietnam War we wanted to prevent the spread of communism and the “domino effect” while in the current war it seems like we are on an operation of fighting terrorism. Many people argue that these claims have yet to be proven.
While many people can see that both of these wars are similar others may argue that they have two different directions. One of the major differences I observed in both wars is where the blame and hatred is put towards. During the time of the Vietnam War a lot of criticism and hatred was shown towards the soldiers who served in the war rather than the government that started it. In the current war in the Middle East our soldiers are shown more support and people point the blame to where it’s due, the government. The Vietnam War was fought against sovereign countries that were trying to spread communism while the war on terror is being fought against different groups and individuals in the country. If you look at both wars as a whole it seems like they have two totally opposite fighting tactics. In the Vietnam War we saw a lot of more straight up fighting but the Iraqi war is surrounded by suicide bombings and other underhanded moves. Today it seems like the media is hiding a lot more of what we are doing rather than in Vietnam where almost everything was televised. Even though both of these wars have several differences they both might end up with the same ending.
The Vietnam War was the first war that the U.S. ever lost and it taught us a lot of valuable lessons. One of the most significant lessons it taught us was not to fight a war that we’re not sure we can win and that applies to the current war today. If we really think about it the U.S. might lose this war and face another Vietnam-like catastrophe. In order to prevent history possibly repeating itself there are many things that we have to do. One of the first things we have to do is to realize why we went to war in the first place. We went to War with Iraq to free them from their “dictator”, but, now that he is gone we should have already pulled out. Many people think that this war is being prolonged for no reason. I think that our government should slowly start to pull out troops and try to minimize more havoc occurring in Iraq. It’s simpler to start a war then to end it and I believe that this one will be hard to end. Another thing is that we as a country have to realize that we made a mistake and continue to support our soldiers no matter what. The soldiers returning from Vietnam felt out of place and I think that now we have learned that it’s important for us to help our soldiers get back to school and work. I think that in order for us to prevent another Vietnam we have to try to make some amends in Iraq and help to reestablish a country that we basically helped to destroy. The people of Vietnam are still dealing with the after-effects of the war and we don’t want to put another third-world country through that. It also seems that if we have any chances of winning this war it might take years and that’s just a waste of money and young Americans. I think that the most important thing for us to remember is that we can’t just run into other countries and try to spread our customs.
Overall, both of these wars seemed never-ending at the time of their start. While it seems like the current war in Iraq might end like Vietnam, we still have some hope. One thing that we have to do as a country is to realize our mistakes and try to fix them as a whole. We also have to keep ourselves from involving with foreign affairs that don’t have anything to do with us. If we continue to try to help other countries then how will they learn to help themselves.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Grapes of Wrath Final Project
When politics are involved in writing there is a lot of controversy on what point the author is trying to get across. Many times an author’s view on politics can be twisted into something totally opposite of what they believe in. In the novel The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck the political views of the author are often questioned. I believe that Steinbeck was trying to advocate a blend of communism and socialism but at the same time criticizing capitalism.
Throughout the entire novel the migrant workers endure hardships wherever they go. While the people who run the banks and the farm owners don’t have anything to worry about the poor migrant workers are left in search for food every day. In the novel Steinbeck demonstrates how the upper-class farm owners are greedy and they rather be greedy than use their wealth to help the poor. In the California of Steinbeck’s novel we see an obvious example of capitalism in which the wealthy farm owners have all of the resources while the migrant workers are left with nothing but the hope of a mere fifteen cents. The migrant workers have to choose between dying of starvation or, falling into the world of capitalism. Steinbeck seems to be anti-capitalist but at times he shows no pity towards the migrant workers. Steinbeck portrays the migrant workers as uneducated and vulgar people at certain points in the novel and this basically shows us that they set themselves up for their misfortune. Another instance of Steinbeck criticizing the migrant workers is when he shows how they would use up the land until nothing else can come from it and then they would just move on. While Steinbeck doesn’t fully put the blame on the wealthy farm owners he also doesn’t let them off. Steinbeck shows the greed of these farm owners when they send out flyers to get thousands of people just to be able to pay lower wages. The farm owners along with the others that were in California before the migrant workers came all have a distinct attitude towards the migrant workers. They all feel like the migrant workers have no need to be there and they are just taking up space but, they are the ones who called them there. I think Steinbeck wanted to express that if we all came together and contributed to the mutual benefit of America then everyone would be better off.
The entire novel seems to bring out the real aspects of the time. We become aware that Steinbeck doesn’t have sympathy for the wealthy or the poor. One thing that Steinbeck does is he expresses how the poor will always stick together and help each other out; this is because they have nothing to lose. In the novel Steinbeck doesn’t seem to promote communism or socialism solely, rather he sort of suggests a blend of the two. Communism and socialism have a lot of similarities, but the main difference is that in communism there is no private ownership. I don’t believe that Steinbeck was pushing for abolishing private-ownership but instead a regulation on it. From Steinbeck’s writing I sense that he isn’t too upbeat about the government getting involved either. The novel conveys a strong message that if the entire group of people come together and create some sort of balance then there wouldn’t be all of that controversy. I think that one of the main things that Steinbeck was trying to put across was the idea of a stronger people equals a stronger nation. This is one of those novels where there can be a hundred different opinions on it and all of them can be right.
Overall The Grapes of Wrath promoted neither communism nor socialism. Steinbeck wanted to prove that if there was a balance in the economy then everyone would benefit. One of the main things that Steinbeck criticized in the novel was the unjust use of capitalism and he established his belief of the people of his time. I think that if Steinbeck was alive in today’s world, he probably would have had to of written a few more novels.
Throughout the entire novel the migrant workers endure hardships wherever they go. While the people who run the banks and the farm owners don’t have anything to worry about the poor migrant workers are left in search for food every day. In the novel Steinbeck demonstrates how the upper-class farm owners are greedy and they rather be greedy than use their wealth to help the poor. In the California of Steinbeck’s novel we see an obvious example of capitalism in which the wealthy farm owners have all of the resources while the migrant workers are left with nothing but the hope of a mere fifteen cents. The migrant workers have to choose between dying of starvation or, falling into the world of capitalism. Steinbeck seems to be anti-capitalist but at times he shows no pity towards the migrant workers. Steinbeck portrays the migrant workers as uneducated and vulgar people at certain points in the novel and this basically shows us that they set themselves up for their misfortune. Another instance of Steinbeck criticizing the migrant workers is when he shows how they would use up the land until nothing else can come from it and then they would just move on. While Steinbeck doesn’t fully put the blame on the wealthy farm owners he also doesn’t let them off. Steinbeck shows the greed of these farm owners when they send out flyers to get thousands of people just to be able to pay lower wages. The farm owners along with the others that were in California before the migrant workers came all have a distinct attitude towards the migrant workers. They all feel like the migrant workers have no need to be there and they are just taking up space but, they are the ones who called them there. I think Steinbeck wanted to express that if we all came together and contributed to the mutual benefit of America then everyone would be better off.
The entire novel seems to bring out the real aspects of the time. We become aware that Steinbeck doesn’t have sympathy for the wealthy or the poor. One thing that Steinbeck does is he expresses how the poor will always stick together and help each other out; this is because they have nothing to lose. In the novel Steinbeck doesn’t seem to promote communism or socialism solely, rather he sort of suggests a blend of the two. Communism and socialism have a lot of similarities, but the main difference is that in communism there is no private ownership. I don’t believe that Steinbeck was pushing for abolishing private-ownership but instead a regulation on it. From Steinbeck’s writing I sense that he isn’t too upbeat about the government getting involved either. The novel conveys a strong message that if the entire group of people come together and create some sort of balance then there wouldn’t be all of that controversy. I think that one of the main things that Steinbeck was trying to put across was the idea of a stronger people equals a stronger nation. This is one of those novels where there can be a hundred different opinions on it and all of them can be right.
Overall The Grapes of Wrath promoted neither communism nor socialism. Steinbeck wanted to prove that if there was a balance in the economy then everyone would benefit. One of the main things that Steinbeck criticized in the novel was the unjust use of capitalism and he established his belief of the people of his time. I think that if Steinbeck was alive in today’s world, he probably would have had to of written a few more novels.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Thousand Cranes Final Project
One of the most important factors that make up a book is the characters. Authors portray characters in various ways. In the novel Thousand Cranes, the author Yasunari Kawabata depicts various characters. One of the characters, Kikuji Mitani is used by Kawabata in the novel. Kikuji represents a character that has been put to the test in the Japanese culture. Kawabata also uses his relationship with other characters to advance the character of Kikuji.
Kikuji is a fairly young Japanese man in his twenties. Kikuji lives alone, being that both of his parents had passed away. One thing that is left out of the novel is a real introduction to Kikuji. We know little of his physical appearance and the only way to find out about the character is by reading the novel. Kikuji lives a basic life where he goes to work and then back home. He is also deeply affected by the choices that his father had made back when he was alive. Kikuji’s father was with several other women in his life and this is one of the main reasons that Kikuji wants nothing to do with his father. It doesn’t matter how much Kikuji tries to get away from his father’s past it still comes back to haunt him. Even though Kikuji knows what is going on around him, he does little to nothing to stop it.
Kikuji is a type of person that will just let things go by him and deal with them at the last moment. Kikuji’s personality can be described as passive because of his way of dealing with life situations. Throughout the story Kikuji is faced with the women of his father’s past who seem like they will never leave him alone. One of the Chikako Kurimoto is basically trying to take over his life. She tries to set him up with a girl without Kikuji’s actual consent. At first Kikuji isn’t exactly in love with the idea but then he begins to fantasize about the girl. After a while Kikuji wants nothing to do with the idea of marrying the girl because he doesn’t want Chikako to be involved with his life. In the novel Kikuji says, “I have bad memories of Kurimoto……..I don’t want that woman’s destinies to touch mine at any point. It’s hard to believe that she introduced us.” (Kawabata 53). This shows how Kikuji had a problem with Chikako but he didn’t directly deal with it, instead he just passed it on to another person. Kikuji is the type of person that will bottle stuff up inside and he never gets the chance to express himself. Being the only real male character in the novel, Kikuji represents someone against the odds. He is being pushed to the limit with his father’s women but he has no real way of dealing with it. When another one of Mr. Mitani’s women, Mrs. Ota, comes into Kikuji’s life he also doesn’t know what to do. He ends up having relations with her but he tries to escape it. Mrs. Ota kills herself before Kikuji gets a chance to talk to her. I believe that Kikuji should try to express himself more often and stop worrying about what other people do around him.
When Kikuji is faced by other people he tends to back down. When he is told that he is going to married to the Iwamura girl by Chikako he doesn’t really express his disapproval. At the beginning of the novel Kikuji doesn’t really have a clear motivation. As the novel progresses Kikuji is faced with opportunities that interest him. Kikuji begins to like the Iwamura girl but before he can act upon his desires he is told that she is already married. Kikuji also begins to fall in love with Mrs. Ota’s daughter Fumiko. Kikuji is around her frequently and in his mind he knows that he loves her but he never tells her. This is one of the main reasons Kikuji is left alone at the end of the novel, if he would just act upon his thoughts, he would be in a different position. At the end of the book Kikuji is left alone with Chikako, a thought that he dreads. I believe that its Kikuji’s fault that he is alone at the end of the book because he had many opportunities to be with someone. Kikuji represents a Japanese man, which in perspective differs from Western men. In my opinion a Western man would probably put Chikako in her place and fight for what is basically his.
Overall, a key character can help a story advance a lot. One thing that I dislike is that Kawabata leaves a lot of the story out. I feel that not just Kikuji, but many other characters are incomplete and are only an outline of what the character could potentially be. We don’t really know much about Kikuji and we are left to interpret the character. If Kawabata would of included a little more information on the character, then we could of possibly be able to understand the decisions he makes.
Kikuji is a fairly young Japanese man in his twenties. Kikuji lives alone, being that both of his parents had passed away. One thing that is left out of the novel is a real introduction to Kikuji. We know little of his physical appearance and the only way to find out about the character is by reading the novel. Kikuji lives a basic life where he goes to work and then back home. He is also deeply affected by the choices that his father had made back when he was alive. Kikuji’s father was with several other women in his life and this is one of the main reasons that Kikuji wants nothing to do with his father. It doesn’t matter how much Kikuji tries to get away from his father’s past it still comes back to haunt him. Even though Kikuji knows what is going on around him, he does little to nothing to stop it.
Kikuji is a type of person that will just let things go by him and deal with them at the last moment. Kikuji’s personality can be described as passive because of his way of dealing with life situations. Throughout the story Kikuji is faced with the women of his father’s past who seem like they will never leave him alone. One of the Chikako Kurimoto is basically trying to take over his life. She tries to set him up with a girl without Kikuji’s actual consent. At first Kikuji isn’t exactly in love with the idea but then he begins to fantasize about the girl. After a while Kikuji wants nothing to do with the idea of marrying the girl because he doesn’t want Chikako to be involved with his life. In the novel Kikuji says, “I have bad memories of Kurimoto……..I don’t want that woman’s destinies to touch mine at any point. It’s hard to believe that she introduced us.” (Kawabata 53). This shows how Kikuji had a problem with Chikako but he didn’t directly deal with it, instead he just passed it on to another person. Kikuji is the type of person that will bottle stuff up inside and he never gets the chance to express himself. Being the only real male character in the novel, Kikuji represents someone against the odds. He is being pushed to the limit with his father’s women but he has no real way of dealing with it. When another one of Mr. Mitani’s women, Mrs. Ota, comes into Kikuji’s life he also doesn’t know what to do. He ends up having relations with her but he tries to escape it. Mrs. Ota kills herself before Kikuji gets a chance to talk to her. I believe that Kikuji should try to express himself more often and stop worrying about what other people do around him.
When Kikuji is faced by other people he tends to back down. When he is told that he is going to married to the Iwamura girl by Chikako he doesn’t really express his disapproval. At the beginning of the novel Kikuji doesn’t really have a clear motivation. As the novel progresses Kikuji is faced with opportunities that interest him. Kikuji begins to like the Iwamura girl but before he can act upon his desires he is told that she is already married. Kikuji also begins to fall in love with Mrs. Ota’s daughter Fumiko. Kikuji is around her frequently and in his mind he knows that he loves her but he never tells her. This is one of the main reasons Kikuji is left alone at the end of the novel, if he would just act upon his thoughts, he would be in a different position. At the end of the book Kikuji is left alone with Chikako, a thought that he dreads. I believe that its Kikuji’s fault that he is alone at the end of the book because he had many opportunities to be with someone. Kikuji represents a Japanese man, which in perspective differs from Western men. In my opinion a Western man would probably put Chikako in her place and fight for what is basically his.
Overall, a key character can help a story advance a lot. One thing that I dislike is that Kawabata leaves a lot of the story out. I feel that not just Kikuji, but many other characters are incomplete and are only an outline of what the character could potentially be. We don’t really know much about Kikuji and we are left to interpret the character. If Kawabata would of included a little more information on the character, then we could of possibly be able to understand the decisions he makes.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Theodicy
When something goes horribly wrong in our lives we tend to wonder what happened. Sometimes we even wonder if it could possibly be God’s fault. Many people begin to believe that God is to blame because he is the acclaimed almighty power. The idea of theodicy defends God’s goodness and justice in the face and existence of evil. I think that we shouldn’t blame God for everything that is going on in our world and for the hardships we have faced in history.
I believe that we shouldn’t blame God for the existence of evil in our world for many various reasons. If we do in fact put the blame on God, then why should we even think that he exists? Just because God doesn’t make his presence known in the face of evil that doesn’t mean that he is doing it on purpose. People tend to think that it is easier to put the blame on someone else rather than taking the heat for themselves. When Leibniz published Theodicy he believed in God. He also believed that God created this world to be the best of all possible worlds. Pangloss, from Candide, also had a similar philosophy. With all the mayhem and destruction going on around him, Pangloss believed that everything happened for the best and he never blamed God. God created this world for all of us and he did it out of his own love and kindness for us. He wanted us to live in the best world possible and that is what he created for us. God put Adam and Eve in a stress free zone, the Garden of Eden. God wanted them to stay there and he basically guaranteed their eternal happiness but they both screwed it up. Many people believe that God was wrong for kicking them out, but why shouldn’t he. God had every right to punish them because he gave them everything else they could ever want and only gave them that one rule. They still decided to eat the apple and it was their own fault and they couldn’t blame God for that. This was one of the first examples of God punishing his children. During Leibniz’s time there were many atheists that tried to prove that God didn’t exist. They began to spread the idea that God and evil are not compatible and that if God existed he would not allow evil to exist. They also said that if God is the creator of the entire universe then he is also the creator and the cause of evil. They also stressed that if God did exist why couldn’t he remove the evil from this world instead of maintaining it. The spread of atheistic beliefs also made it difficult for philosophers like Leibniz to get his point across.
Over the years we have been put through a lot of suffering. If God is the creator, destroyer, and sustainer of this world why is he putting us through all of this? I think that everything that happens to us happens for a reason. If this world was perfect and everything went our way we would never realize how good we have it. Even today we take everything for granted and we don’t see that it could bring us to an early demise. As human beings we aren’t built to last forever and neither is the Earth that we live on. Many philosophers today would disagree with the likes of Leibniz, just because of the time period we are in. There are many things that happen in today’s times that we can’t really find an exact answer for so many people think that it is God’s fault. I personally think that God wants us all to suffer at one given point in our lives. I think that if we can overcome our obstacles and look evil in the eye we can prove ourselves worthy. I believe that if we can overcome evil we can achieve God’s goal for us. God wants us to be able to be happy with ourselves and to reach our full potential. If we didn’t face suffering and obstacles in our lives then we wouldn’t have anything to strive for. I believe that God is everywhere and everything is composed of her. I try never to doubt God because I believe that he has a plan for each and every one of us. Some people think that if we are all God’s children why does he make some of them suffer and die like in third world countries. I think that God makes people suffer like that to show the rest of us that we shouldn’t think that were invincible. I also think that God makes these people suffer for another reason, if we are all truly God’s children why shouldn’t we extend a helping hand to our brothers and sisters. I think that God wants us to show the same generosity that he showed us towards others in need. God created this world for everybody and we can’t be selfish and have it for ourselves. I think that God wants us to treat each other equally because that’s the same way he created us, equal. Instead of blaming God I think we should blame ourselves because most of the wrong that happens in this world is our own fault. God isn’t the one going around killing people and declaring war on other countries, we are. God gave of this world to live and be happy with not only ourselves but with each other. God never wanted us to turn this beautiful world into a nightmare. We as a whole need to realize that if we all act together we can make a big difference in this world and perhaps even eliminate evil from this world.
Overall I think that God is not to blame for the existence of suffering and evil in this world. I think that God had a plan for us since the beginning and we are currently prolonging it. I also stand by my opinion that we as a people should put some of the blame on ourselves. I consider life to be a test that God is putting us through and it is important that we try our bests to pass it. If we can pass the test of life and prevail over the suffering, pain, and evil of this world then we can reach our ultimate goal of happiness.
I believe that we shouldn’t blame God for the existence of evil in our world for many various reasons. If we do in fact put the blame on God, then why should we even think that he exists? Just because God doesn’t make his presence known in the face of evil that doesn’t mean that he is doing it on purpose. People tend to think that it is easier to put the blame on someone else rather than taking the heat for themselves. When Leibniz published Theodicy he believed in God. He also believed that God created this world to be the best of all possible worlds. Pangloss, from Candide, also had a similar philosophy. With all the mayhem and destruction going on around him, Pangloss believed that everything happened for the best and he never blamed God. God created this world for all of us and he did it out of his own love and kindness for us. He wanted us to live in the best world possible and that is what he created for us. God put Adam and Eve in a stress free zone, the Garden of Eden. God wanted them to stay there and he basically guaranteed their eternal happiness but they both screwed it up. Many people believe that God was wrong for kicking them out, but why shouldn’t he. God had every right to punish them because he gave them everything else they could ever want and only gave them that one rule. They still decided to eat the apple and it was their own fault and they couldn’t blame God for that. This was one of the first examples of God punishing his children. During Leibniz’s time there were many atheists that tried to prove that God didn’t exist. They began to spread the idea that God and evil are not compatible and that if God existed he would not allow evil to exist. They also said that if God is the creator of the entire universe then he is also the creator and the cause of evil. They also stressed that if God did exist why couldn’t he remove the evil from this world instead of maintaining it. The spread of atheistic beliefs also made it difficult for philosophers like Leibniz to get his point across.
Over the years we have been put through a lot of suffering. If God is the creator, destroyer, and sustainer of this world why is he putting us through all of this? I think that everything that happens to us happens for a reason. If this world was perfect and everything went our way we would never realize how good we have it. Even today we take everything for granted and we don’t see that it could bring us to an early demise. As human beings we aren’t built to last forever and neither is the Earth that we live on. Many philosophers today would disagree with the likes of Leibniz, just because of the time period we are in. There are many things that happen in today’s times that we can’t really find an exact answer for so many people think that it is God’s fault. I personally think that God wants us all to suffer at one given point in our lives. I think that if we can overcome our obstacles and look evil in the eye we can prove ourselves worthy. I believe that if we can overcome evil we can achieve God’s goal for us. God wants us to be able to be happy with ourselves and to reach our full potential. If we didn’t face suffering and obstacles in our lives then we wouldn’t have anything to strive for. I believe that God is everywhere and everything is composed of her. I try never to doubt God because I believe that he has a plan for each and every one of us. Some people think that if we are all God’s children why does he make some of them suffer and die like in third world countries. I think that God makes people suffer like that to show the rest of us that we shouldn’t think that were invincible. I also think that God makes these people suffer for another reason, if we are all truly God’s children why shouldn’t we extend a helping hand to our brothers and sisters. I think that God wants us to show the same generosity that he showed us towards others in need. God created this world for everybody and we can’t be selfish and have it for ourselves. I think that God wants us to treat each other equally because that’s the same way he created us, equal. Instead of blaming God I think we should blame ourselves because most of the wrong that happens in this world is our own fault. God isn’t the one going around killing people and declaring war on other countries, we are. God gave of this world to live and be happy with not only ourselves but with each other. God never wanted us to turn this beautiful world into a nightmare. We as a whole need to realize that if we all act together we can make a big difference in this world and perhaps even eliminate evil from this world.
Overall I think that God is not to blame for the existence of suffering and evil in this world. I think that God had a plan for us since the beginning and we are currently prolonging it. I also stand by my opinion that we as a people should put some of the blame on ourselves. I consider life to be a test that God is putting us through and it is important that we try our bests to pass it. If we can pass the test of life and prevail over the suffering, pain, and evil of this world then we can reach our ultimate goal of happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)