The readings for this class have been helpful in reinvigorating my analytic approach to literature, probably more so than much of the political philosophy that I've recently read. The reason: I think most of that political philosophy I've more or less agreed with, so my focus has been on understanding rather than critiquing. On the other hand, suedo-social psychology has never been a subject I've enjoyed, so I find myself reading more critically. Consequently, I've achieved a fuller understanding of the approach and the argument technique the authors use. Moreover, it's always salutary to recognize one's own hostility to something; it's given me a chance to understand why I feel the way I do. Do I hold sexist sentiments? Does my selective perception preclude me from understanding how the disadvantaged view the current and historical distribution of power?
As far as what I've learned with dealing with the media, that is, deconstructing it...*shrug*
I think a lot of authors of the material/critique's we've read and watched have used their source material in a very focused, narrow way to serve their goal; i.e., I don't think these observations have been "discoveries" or have hit on many moral truths. I do think that queer theory and 1st and 2nd wave feminism are interesting branches of philosophy, but I think they could both be put exclusively into political science. This way they could be broken down strictly into distributions/restrictions of power and distributions/restrictions of resources, and importantly, how they developed and why--e.g. the approach that Micheal Foucault takes in analyzing origins of "homosexuality" (I'm aware that queer theory especially is becoming more recognized in Poly Sci). Of course, an advantage of the philosophical study is the ability to analyze the morality of any deprivations of power...
I believe that my grammar has improved a little since this course began. I still have a lot of work to do, but I'll get there eventually. My use of dashes and semicolons (the two punctuations I had wanted to work on the most) are still far from perfect, but I've learned how to use them a little better. My vocabulary has improved a little bit--I now understand the words "libretto" and "nouveau." Supervised practice usually improves skill, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to practice my writing with experienced instruction.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Op-Ed letter to Mr. Thomas Paine.
Before Cosmo and Vogue began their assault on self-esteem with the introduction of their norms of beauty, some utilized the media to shape the paths of nations. It is Jan. 1776. Thomas Paine encourages revolution with his popular appeal to reason! Let's begin the debate.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Americans, Citizens of the British Empire,
Thomas Paine has published a piece of treason, which he ironically labeled, "Common Sense." Mr. Paine has said, "Using reason" will bring a rationale person to his erroneous conclusion. I hold that reason provides us with an antipodean result; indeed, Paine has used very little in the way of "Common Sense".
Mr. Paine begins the assault on his country by proclaiming, "Oppression is the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches." Mr. Paine, since you purport to speak for all the colonies, how do you answer for slavery? Is slavery not the means to riches for American planters? What is more oppressive than slavery? You say that American and Britain cannot reconcile because, "There are injuries which nature cannot forgive," and later, "The Almighty hath implanted in us feelings...for good and wise purposes. They distinguish us from ...common animals." Thomas, since the Almighty has made you wise enough to know the offenses against your liberty, allegedly by your own empire, why are you blind to the offenses against the liberty of your Negro population? Further, if America cannot reconcile with her own government, how will America reconcile with her own own Negro population?
Thomas Paine says that wars are the result of the pride of kings, yet throughout the second half of his pamphlet, he suggests war against his own country on almost every page. He wisely avows, "It is the violence which is done...to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force;...which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms." Mr. Paine, what about the violence done at Lexington and Concord? Seventy-three members of the Royal Army were murdered. how do you justify the destruction of Thomas Hutchinson and Major James's house? How do you justify the destruction of 10,000 lbs worth of tea on December 16, 1773? If violence against persons and the destruction of property qualify the use of arms, is your country not justified in using arms to adjudicate these situations?
Mr. Paine's rhetoric is dangerous. Some may be tricked by his craft title, but with just a little bit of investigation, you fellow citizens will be unconvinced by this unreasoned, traitorous propaganda.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Americans, Citizens of the British Empire,
Thomas Paine has published a piece of treason, which he ironically labeled, "Common Sense." Mr. Paine has said, "Using reason" will bring a rationale person to his erroneous conclusion. I hold that reason provides us with an antipodean result; indeed, Paine has used very little in the way of "Common Sense".
Mr. Paine begins the assault on his country by proclaiming, "Oppression is the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches." Mr. Paine, since you purport to speak for all the colonies, how do you answer for slavery? Is slavery not the means to riches for American planters? What is more oppressive than slavery? You say that American and Britain cannot reconcile because, "There are injuries which nature cannot forgive," and later, "The Almighty hath implanted in us feelings...for good and wise purposes. They distinguish us from ...common animals." Thomas, since the Almighty has made you wise enough to know the offenses against your liberty, allegedly by your own empire, why are you blind to the offenses against the liberty of your Negro population? Further, if America cannot reconcile with her own government, how will America reconcile with her own own Negro population?
Thomas Paine says that wars are the result of the pride of kings, yet throughout the second half of his pamphlet, he suggests war against his own country on almost every page. He wisely avows, "It is the violence which is done...to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force;...which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms." Mr. Paine, what about the violence done at Lexington and Concord? Seventy-three members of the Royal Army were murdered. how do you justify the destruction of Thomas Hutchinson and Major James's house? How do you justify the destruction of 10,000 lbs worth of tea on December 16, 1773? If violence against persons and the destruction of property qualify the use of arms, is your country not justified in using arms to adjudicate these situations?
Mr. Paine's rhetoric is dangerous. Some may be tricked by his craft title, but with just a little bit of investigation, you fellow citizens will be unconvinced by this unreasoned, traitorous propaganda.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Relationship Myths and Norms in HBO's "Sex and the City."
My wife is a huge fan of HBO's "Sex and the City." Over the years, for gifts, I've bought her the various seasons of the show, and now, she owns them all. Consequently, I've had a chance to watch all of the episodes and have become a fan myself. For my research project, I will analyze HBO's "Sex and the City,". I'm interested in discovering how the show forwards or counters Galician's myths, specifically, myths 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9, as well as what norms are suggested and enforced by the acceptance or rejection of those myths by the show's characters. I hypothesize that the show will reinforce and counter the myths, with respective characters struggles being tied to the acceptance of the myths; thus countering the myths, and occasional "breakthroughs" in relationships forwarding the myths.
My Audience will be my class and teacher. I expect they'll be interested in my results as Galician's myths and their acceptance or rejection and propagation in the media has been the focus of our reading and writing. Naturally I hope to convince them to see my argument my way; I intend to influence and guide their reasoning with solid writing and argument.
I intend to view 2-4 episodes of each season, carefully paying attention to the dynamics of the relationships, both romantic and platonic. I would also like to incorporate some interviews with various viewers, but that will depend on the amount of material I already have to work with from my notes on the show as well information from various journals.
I'll begin to start watching episodes immediately, and hopefully I'll have my thesis developed in a couple days. From their I'll add material until I can complete my thoughts on the subject; hopefully I can finish that 3-4 days before the project is due. I'll spend the last 3 days writing.
I'm not sure how exactly I should conduct interviews, if I decide to do them. How should I pick my interviewees?
I hope to learn about the influence of a popular of its viewers regarding relationship norms and expectation. I would be nice to find some results that are not expected; therefore giving me a fresh perspective on my assumptions.
My Audience will be my class and teacher. I expect they'll be interested in my results as Galician's myths and their acceptance or rejection and propagation in the media has been the focus of our reading and writing. Naturally I hope to convince them to see my argument my way; I intend to influence and guide their reasoning with solid writing and argument.
I intend to view 2-4 episodes of each season, carefully paying attention to the dynamics of the relationships, both romantic and platonic. I would also like to incorporate some interviews with various viewers, but that will depend on the amount of material I already have to work with from my notes on the show as well information from various journals.
I'll begin to start watching episodes immediately, and hopefully I'll have my thesis developed in a couple days. From their I'll add material until I can complete my thoughts on the subject; hopefully I can finish that 3-4 days before the project is due. I'll spend the last 3 days writing.
I'm not sure how exactly I should conduct interviews, if I decide to do them. How should I pick my interviewees?
I hope to learn about the influence of a popular of its viewers regarding relationship norms and expectation. I would be nice to find some results that are not expected; therefore giving me a fresh perspective on my assumptions.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Justified Intervention
Generally, international law--treaties, declarations, and the accepted norms relating to international conduct--requires nation-states to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations. War is rarely justified. However, there are a few provisions, which permit war and the violation of another state's territorial integrity: war of self-defense and a humanitarian intervention to prevent or rectify gross violations of human rights. The United States, for example, has engaged in war for both of these reasons (and a few others as well, but I do not want to explore that here). Should powerful, developed nations engage and practice military intervention or violate the territorial integrity of other states for the purpose of ensuring and protecting human rights?
The quick answer (perhaps for many in the west) would be "yes". I do not think the answer is "no", but a yes certainly needs qualified and analyzed with respect to the consideration of several questions.
An obvious point of departure for this inquiry: What are human rights? Does a definition of the concept need to be universally embraced before it can be used as a legitimate reference? I'm not trying to turn the issue into an epistemological conundrum--where a failure of understanding or agreement would certainly lead to avoidable suffering. But a more a less common apprehension of human rights needs understood, especially between the intervening country and those suffering in the targeted country. Differences exist in the expectations of government behavior and between what various peoples demand in regards to individual respect. Many reference the U.N. declaration of rights (1948) as an agreement that settles the definitions of human rights, yet the U.N. declaration of rights is largely based on the western construction of liberalism, with several inherent contradictions between procedural and substantive guarantees. Liberalism with its foundational approach to protect the individual before the group presents problems. For example, liberalism differs from Confucian ideology, which perceives the individual as part of a family, and the family as part of a group. Focusing on an individual's rights before the consideration of the family and the larger group seems nonsensical in regards to an idea of justice.
I'm not suggesting that this kind of problem inevitably boils down to a brand of moral relativism (I take human rights and concepts of justice to be moral), but these problems need a cosmopolitan approach. Military invasion and occupation, (even occupation predicated on humanitarian grounds), invariably leads to human rights abuses in its own right. It does not take much for the noble intentions' good will to be frustrated; a paternalistic approach to cross-cultural problems quickly engenders resentment. Thoughts?
The quick answer (perhaps for many in the west) would be "yes". I do not think the answer is "no", but a yes certainly needs qualified and analyzed with respect to the consideration of several questions.
An obvious point of departure for this inquiry: What are human rights? Does a definition of the concept need to be universally embraced before it can be used as a legitimate reference? I'm not trying to turn the issue into an epistemological conundrum--where a failure of understanding or agreement would certainly lead to avoidable suffering. But a more a less common apprehension of human rights needs understood, especially between the intervening country and those suffering in the targeted country. Differences exist in the expectations of government behavior and between what various peoples demand in regards to individual respect. Many reference the U.N. declaration of rights (1948) as an agreement that settles the definitions of human rights, yet the U.N. declaration of rights is largely based on the western construction of liberalism, with several inherent contradictions between procedural and substantive guarantees. Liberalism with its foundational approach to protect the individual before the group presents problems. For example, liberalism differs from Confucian ideology, which perceives the individual as part of a family, and the family as part of a group. Focusing on an individual's rights before the consideration of the family and the larger group seems nonsensical in regards to an idea of justice.
I'm not suggesting that this kind of problem inevitably boils down to a brand of moral relativism (I take human rights and concepts of justice to be moral), but these problems need a cosmopolitan approach. Military invasion and occupation, (even occupation predicated on humanitarian grounds), invariably leads to human rights abuses in its own right. It does not take much for the noble intentions' good will to be frustrated; a paternalistic approach to cross-cultural problems quickly engenders resentment. Thoughts?
Monday, June 29, 2009
God vs. Science?
Flipping through archived covers of old issues of Time, I wasn't sure what exactly I was looking for. I suppose I hoped to find a cover with leading cover lines, a loaded question, some sexist or racist pictorial representation; basically a magazine cover that forwarded some of Galacian's myths or an advertisement that created unrealistic or harmful expectations. A cover meeting any of those prerequisites would make this assignment easier and I could neatly apply our new terms and concepts. Coming across the the November, 2006 issue I paused after giving the cover the same cursory glance I had given the ten previous covers before hitting the 'next' button. "God vs. Science" written in black jumped out at me from the all white background. To the right of the cover line--the only cover line-- a DNA helix descended, transforming into a rosary with a cross attached to the end.
This cover didn't seem like a convenient venue for an application of my newly acquired 'unrealistic expectation debunkers,' but the statement "God vs. Science" immediately implied and perpetuated notions that many us have come to accept casually, without much challenge or worry. First, this seems like an acceptable statement. God and science are at odds, or so it seems, each representing ideals and standards of knowledge. While that notion--perpetual conflict between the two--seems troubling to me, many people, when picking sides line up exclusively under one of these banners. Those choosing God see their understanding as grounded in faith, approaching the idea of truth as a transcendentalist concept that must be studied with a firm, literal interpretation of scripture. Those choosing Science will claim that reason, discovery, and empirical verification provide the only means of true understanding. But is this notion a myth? Why do people in both camps accept the battle, and why to observers see the debate as an unavoidable confrontation and corollary of the two biggest modern influences?
This notion of the diametric opposition of God and Science is furthered by a contentious history: the execution of Copernicus, Galileo's forced abjuration, the John Scopes trial and a continuing debate over evolution, as well as the way modern society's cultural progression erodes fundamentalist values.
The media's habit of sensationalizing, taken together with the foundational purpose that God and science serve in our approaches to life blind us--the debaters and observers from asking different questions and making different statements, such as: "God and Science"; "Can scriptures be reinterpreted in light of recent scientific discoveries?"; and "Does scientific discovery require the disregard of comprehensive moral doctrines on the basis of a few inconsistencies?" A dialog needs opened without the parties bringing an uncompromising approach, or an arrogant certainty to the table.
This cover didn't seem like a convenient venue for an application of my newly acquired 'unrealistic expectation debunkers,' but the statement "God vs. Science" immediately implied and perpetuated notions that many us have come to accept casually, without much challenge or worry. First, this seems like an acceptable statement. God and science are at odds, or so it seems, each representing ideals and standards of knowledge. While that notion--perpetual conflict between the two--seems troubling to me, many people, when picking sides line up exclusively under one of these banners. Those choosing God see their understanding as grounded in faith, approaching the idea of truth as a transcendentalist concept that must be studied with a firm, literal interpretation of scripture. Those choosing Science will claim that reason, discovery, and empirical verification provide the only means of true understanding. But is this notion a myth? Why do people in both camps accept the battle, and why to observers see the debate as an unavoidable confrontation and corollary of the two biggest modern influences?
This notion of the diametric opposition of God and Science is furthered by a contentious history: the execution of Copernicus, Galileo's forced abjuration, the John Scopes trial and a continuing debate over evolution, as well as the way modern society's cultural progression erodes fundamentalist values.
The media's habit of sensationalizing, taken together with the foundational purpose that God and science serve in our approaches to life blind us--the debaters and observers from asking different questions and making different statements, such as: "God and Science"; "Can scriptures be reinterpreted in light of recent scientific discoveries?"; and "Does scientific discovery require the disregard of comprehensive moral doctrines on the basis of a few inconsistencies?" A dialog needs opened without the parties bringing an uncompromising approach, or an arrogant certainty to the table.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Introduction
Hello. My name is Robert Abdalla and I'm a 3rd year pre-law philosophy major. I was born in Pittsburgh PA, but grew up in Granville and Newark Ohio. I have a couple brothers, one substantially older, the other slightly younger.
As far as interests, hobbies, recreational activities, and what not: I enjoy golf, tennis, political philosophy, economics, logic, chess, nature walks, food, and... I suppose it would take me a while to exhaust a list of my enjoyments, so I'll leave it at that.
My writing experience remains limited, which in conjunction with graduation requirements serves as the impetus for me taking this class. Antecedent to attending Ohio U., I served in the U.S. army as an infantryman. Occasionally I wrote letters and short stories as well as maintaining a journal (I use "maintain" loosely, perhaps "occasioned" would be a better fit).
The inspiration for my unsophisticated, stodgy short stories during my time in the army was mostly made up of other short story authors. I enjoy Tobias Wolff, Raymond Carver, Hemingway, and others with more-or-less a minimalist bent. I've found inspiration in Joyce (The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man especially), agility in Stephen King (The Body and Shawshank Redemption are of note here), and amusement and fascination in Alexander Dumas. Besides fiction I spend a good deal of time reading history, philosophy--mostly political or Zionist--, and the occasional scientist's memoir.
I believe my strengths and weaknesses as a writer nullify each other, leaving me very average. I think I have a decent vocabulary, but my attempts at precision or perspicuity are invariably frustrated by poor structure and grammar errors--for example, I sometimes use an adjective as an adverb (highlighted in the 2nd paragraph above by my use of "antecedent"), and I consistently have trouble with punctuation.
During this class I hope to improve my ability to communicate my arguments in an effective, professional way. Specifically, I would like to learn how to build on and support my thesis without sounding dull or cluttering my contentions with redundancy.
As far as interests, hobbies, recreational activities, and what not: I enjoy golf, tennis, political philosophy, economics, logic, chess, nature walks, food, and... I suppose it would take me a while to exhaust a list of my enjoyments, so I'll leave it at that.
My writing experience remains limited, which in conjunction with graduation requirements serves as the impetus for me taking this class. Antecedent to attending Ohio U., I served in the U.S. army as an infantryman. Occasionally I wrote letters and short stories as well as maintaining a journal (I use "maintain" loosely, perhaps "occasioned" would be a better fit).
The inspiration for my unsophisticated, stodgy short stories during my time in the army was mostly made up of other short story authors. I enjoy Tobias Wolff, Raymond Carver, Hemingway, and others with more-or-less a minimalist bent. I've found inspiration in Joyce (The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man especially), agility in Stephen King (The Body and Shawshank Redemption are of note here), and amusement and fascination in Alexander Dumas. Besides fiction I spend a good deal of time reading history, philosophy--mostly political or Zionist--, and the occasional scientist's memoir.
I believe my strengths and weaknesses as a writer nullify each other, leaving me very average. I think I have a decent vocabulary, but my attempts at precision or perspicuity are invariably frustrated by poor structure and grammar errors--for example, I sometimes use an adjective as an adverb (highlighted in the 2nd paragraph above by my use of "antecedent"), and I consistently have trouble with punctuation.
During this class I hope to improve my ability to communicate my arguments in an effective, professional way. Specifically, I would like to learn how to build on and support my thesis without sounding dull or cluttering my contentions with redundancy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)