Beyond Good and Evil

Does our nature restrict us to be described by either good or evil? Are we really destined to be nothing more than either good or evil, or perhaps is there something in between? Since these two words mean different things to different people and their social meanings have been altered countless times throughout history it does not seem appropriate to label humans as either. Before a clear answer to the previous question can be answered, the meaning of good and evil must be clearly established. I shall not focus on criminals, some known historical examples or even terrorists, as their generally anti-social behavior does not resemble evil and certainly not good, but rather disturbed and misguided views of themselves and society. 

 

Philosophers have generally been divided on the origins of good and evil since the time of Thrasymachus and Socrates. Hedonism is the believe that humans are naturally self centered creatures. This position is taken by Thrasymachus, while Socrates believed that because we are social creatures we have to work with others so we are taught a set of principles to make us do so (Mook 27). These two opposing views have eventually evolved into the terms we now call “good” and “evil.”

 

 What characteristics of humans make them “evil”? Evil on the social level implies many different things, for example: greed, selfishness, stoicism, nihilism or anger. In short: evil is any behavior that places the individual above the rest of society. This part of the essay will explore these terms and their relationship to human nature. Do we all not strive to be better than the rest? Has the perpetual competition with the Jones’s all around us not become the main thing we live for everyday? To be better than the others, to live in unnecessary luxury, to simply have more has become the lifestyle of choice for millions of people. Does that not mean that we are inherently greedy and selfish and thus evil? According to Freud, the desire to have more is driven by the pleasure principle, one of the dominating forces of the subconscious mind (Schaffhausen). The conclusion that we are inherently “evil” is therefore correct. For example, since we all strive for power, whoever has this power must secure it. As Machiavelli says in The Prince:

I know everyone will maintain that it would be commendable for a prince to have all the qualities I have just mentioned that are held to be good. But because a prince cannot wholly have or espouse all these qualities, as the human condition will not allow it, he must be wise enough to know how to evade the infamy of the qualities that are thought to be bad, which will cause him to lose his state (Machiavelli 60).

Greed and selfishness do have their limits for an individual however. We cannot all be wealthy after all, and therefore these terms have been labeled undesirable personality traits to either make other people feel less ashamed of their lack of wealth or to prevent people from placing the obtainment of wealth above all else.

 

Stoicism is different however. The lack of emotions has often been linked to cruelty. However, having too much sympathy conflicts with our survival instinct, meaning that a degree of stoicism is indeed part of our nature, based on the previously stated definition, makes us naturally “evil.” Nihilism, by definition, is among other things the rejection of a purpose of life. However, the rejection of a purpose is in conflict with our biological drive to procreate, hence nihilists are looked down up for this and other reasons. However, not only are nihilists looked down upon, but also other people whose views on the meaning of life differs with the established principles. Since humans are naturally discriminatory against alien beliefs, humans will inevitably consider each other to be “evil” because some belief conflicts with another. Anger is only the result of failed actions. Anger is therefore neither good nor evil; instead the outcome is determined by the person experiencing it. Since we all experience anger at some point, even people whose anger results in rage are only following what nature has intended for them to do, hence all “evil” resulting from emotions is natural. This means that the entire human subconscious is responsible for “evil,” and since the subconscious is merely another part of human thinking, it is only logical to assume that all humans are in fact naturally “evil.”

 

Since humans are social creatures, we are taught a set of morals and values and adhering to them makes a person “good,” effectively stating that “goodness” is a learned character trait. John Locke, one of the main influences on social construction theory stated that since humans are born as blank slates, which is otherwise known as tabula rasa, we must learn good from evil first hand (“John Locke-mind as a tabula rasa”). Some of the typical values associated with “goodness” are charity, selflessness, self sacrifice, honesty and a drive to work hard. In other words: any form of altruistic behavior that places society above the individual. Since we are no longer faced with the constant struggle for day-to-day survival, like our cavemen ancestors were, the assumption that humans have become interdependent on one another is only logical. This interdependence led to a development of a complex social system, which throughout history always consisted of dominating people holding power over farmers/workers. The leaders are expected to be honest and selfless and the other people are expected to be hard workers. These characteristics have ultimately become what we now consider to be “good” character traits in humans because they have aided in the development of modern societies. Honesty in a leader is required for him or her to gain followers and to keep them and the peasantry in line requires a good work ethic is necessary for the society to remain productive and prosperous. The concept of charity has similar, yet perplexing roots. Why do some humans choose to give money or personal belongings away without hesitation? Surely, doing so would conflict with our primitive survival instinct. Yet, on closer examination it becomes apparent the opposite is true. Instead of weakening oneself by giving away either money or things, we are strengthening society by helping the less fortunate, or in strict survival terms: we are helping others to increase our own chance of survival. One can only assume that charity is a taught behavior since it really is not in our best interest to help out other people. Selflessness and self-sacrifice are much like charity in the sense that others benefit because one person decides to help them. The only difference is that money or belongings are not necessarily involved. Based on the structure of human society, words like “good” are used to describe behavior and actions that are benefiting society, and thus reward them with praise and admiration. “Goodness” is indeed a taught trait that has been implemented in every culture order to secure the survival of humanity in their respective societies.

 

While these two theories appear to contradict each other, common ground can be found. Yes, humans are social, and as such we must act a certain way. The preferred way is called “good” behavior, although our natural survival instinct drives us to be greedy or self centered, which some people describe as being “evil”. However, obviously not all people can be “good” as there would be no “evil” to avoid, and nor could all humans be “evil,” as having what we consider to be undesirable characteristics would ultimately be regarded as “good.” Furthermore, people holding power must not allow themselves to openly display negative, or “evil” qualities, and common people should only display positive, or “good” characteristics. A combination of these factors has led to the establishment of a clear equilibrium and distinction between “good” and “evil.”

 

Perhaps the simplest solution to the solve the seemingly perpetual struggle between the two opposing and imaginary ideas of “good” and “evil” is for one person to do what Nietzsche said and create new values for him or herself, provided they are within what society deems acceptable. “Good” and “evil” are just terms describing human nature, and are thus devoid of any real meaning. As Nietzsche so famously said: “Parables are all names of good and evil: they do not express, they only hint. A fool who wants to know of them (Nietzsche 57)!”  Verily, fools are those who strive to live “good” lives and fools are those who give in to their “wickedness.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

“John Locke-mind as a tabula rasa.” Age-of-the-sage.org. 17 November 2007 <http://www.age-

            of-the-sage.org/philosophy/john_locke_tabula_rasa.html>

 

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Essential Writings of Machiavelli. Trans. Peter Constantine. New

York: The Modern Library, 2007.

 

Mook, D.G. Motivation. The organization of action, Chap. 2. A brief history of motivation

            concept. New York: Norton Company, 1996.

 

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Trans. Adrian Del Caro. New York: Cambridge

            University Press, 2006.

 

Schaffhausen, Joanna. “The Pleasure Principle: Connections between Reward and Learning.”

BrainConnection.com. November 2000. 17 November 2007

<http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/pleasure-principle>

In his essay, "The Emergence of Mankind", Joseph Campbell begins by describing the universal symbols of mythology, the serpent, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge and their possible meanings. Campbell ends this portion of his essay by stating that “the inevitability of individual death and the endurance of the social order-have been combined symbolically and constitute the nuclear structuring force of the rites and, thereby, the society (Campbell 23).” In addition to touching on the earliest myths and some specific examples, he describes their possible meanings by stating that those stories (he mostly relies on the biblical story of genesis) are ubiquitous because, according to Campbell, they represent the universal subconscious. Following that, Campbell discusses the earliest humans as well as things like the significance of fire as well as possible origins and meaning of the cave paintings. It is not until the end of the essay that Campbell discusses the emergence of gender relations in the earliest human societies, and even then does he only present two examples, which also explain the beginning of men’s societies as well as the idea that life will ultimately result from death.  

 

While the essay was interesting to read, it lacked a coherent focus. Instead of only discussing the emergence of modern human culture in one particular area, Campbell discusses everything from religion/myth to the significance of fire to the Neanderthals. The essay thus lacks strong points and appears to be more of a collection of loosely fitted together research. Instead of focusing on such a broad topic, the essay might have been better if Campbell had focused on one particular group of people and explained their “emergence” in greater detail, ranging from their mythology to their tribal ceremonies, as well as the deeper significance of them. This would add focus to the essay that is presently lacking.

Does our nature restrict us to be described by either adjective? Are we really destined to be nothing more than either good or evil, or perhaps is there something in between? Since these two words mean different things to different people and their social meanings have been altered countless times throughout history that it does not seem appropriate to label humans as either. Before a clear answer to the previous question can be established, the meaning of good and evil must be clearly established. I shall not focus on criminals, some better known historical examples or even terrorists, as their generally anti-social behavior does not resemble evil and certainly not good, but rather disturbed and misguided views of themselves and society.

Philosophers are generally divided on the origins of good and evil. Some say that humans are naturally self centered creatures who will only do what benefits them and are thus “evil”; others say that because we are social creatures we have to work with others so we are taught a set of principles which can be described as “good”

This section will deal with the theory that humans are naturally evil. What characteristics of a human make him evil? Evil on the social level implies many different things, for example greed, selfishness, stoicism, nihilism or anger. In short: evil is any behavior that places the individual above the rest of society. This part of the essay will explore these terms and their relationship to human nature. Do we all not strive to be better than the rest? Has the perpetual competition with the Jones’s all around us not become the main thing we live for everyday? To be better than the others, to be better off than they are, to live in unnecessary luxury, to simply have more has become the lifestyle of choice for millions of people. Does that not mean that we are inherently greedy and selfish and thus evil? According to Freud, the desire to have more is driven by the pleasure principle, one of the dominating forces of the subconscious mind. The conclusion that we are inherently “evil” is therefore correct. Greed and selfishness do have their limits for an individual however. We can’t all be wealthy after all, and therefore these terms have been labeled undesirable personality traits to either make other people feel less ashamed of their lack of wealth or to prevent people from placing the obtainment of wealth above all else. Stoicism is different however. The lack of emotions has often been linked to cruelty. However, having too much sympathy conflicts with our survival instinct, which means that a degree of stoicism is indeed part of our nature, which based on the previously stated definition, makes us naturally “evil”. Nihilism, by definition, is among other things the rejection of a purpose of life. This is in conflict with our biological drive to procreate, hence nihilists are looked down up for this and other reasons. However, not only are nihilists looked down upon, but also other people whose views on the meaning of life differs with the established principles. Since humans are naturally discriminatory against alien beliefs, it can be said that humans will inevitably consider each other to be “evil” because some belief conflicts with another. Anger is only the result of failed actions. It is neither good nor evil; instead the outcome is determined by the person experiencing it. Since we all experience it, it can be said that even people whose anger results in rage are only following what nature has intended for them to do, hence all “evil” resulting from emotions is natural. This means that the entire human subconscious is responsible for “evil”, and since the subconscious is merely another part of human thinking, it is only logical to assume that all humans are in fact naturally “evil”.

This section will deal with the theory that since humans are social creatures, we are taught a set of morals and values and adhering to them makes a person “good”, effectively stating that “goodness” is a learned character trait. Some of the typical values associated with “goodness” are charity, selflessness, self sacrifice, honesty and a drive to work hard. In other words: any, mostly altruistic behavior that places society above the individual. Since we are no longer faced with the constant struggle for day to day survival our cavemen ancestors were, it is only logical to assume that humans have become very interdependent on one another. This interdependence led to a development of a complex social system, which throughout history always consisted of dominating people holding power and farmers/workers. The leaders are expected to be honest and selfless and the other people are expected to be hard workers. These characteristics have ultimately become what we now consider to be “good” characteristics in humans because they have aided in the development of modern societies. Honesty in a leader is required for him or her to gain followers and to keep them and the peasantry requires a good work ethic is required for the society to remain productive and prosperous. The concept of charity has similar, yet perplexing roots. Why is it that some humans choose to give money or personal belongings away without hesitation? Surely, doing so would conflict with our primitive survival instinct. Yet, on closer examination it becomes apparent the opposite is true. Instead of weakening oneself by giving away either money or things, we are strengthening society by helping the less fortunate, or in strict survival terms: we are helping others to increase our own chance of survival. One can only assume that this is a taught behavior since it really is not in our best interest to help out other people. Selflessness and self sacrifice are very much like charity in the sense that others benefit because one person decides to help them. The only difference is that money or belongings are not necessarily involved. Based on the structure of human society, it can be said that words like “good” are used to describe behavior and actions that are benefiting society, and thus reward them. “Goodness” is indeed a taught trait that has been implemented in order to secure the survival of humanity and their respective societies.

While these two theories appear to contradict each other, common ground can be found. It is true that humans are social, and as such we must act a certain way, the preferred way of course is called “good” behavior, although our natural survival instinct drives us to be greedy or self centered, which some people describe as being “evil”. However, obviously not all people can be “good” as there would be no “evil” to avoid, and nor could all humans be “evil” as having those characteristics would ultimately be regarded as “good”. Furthermore, people holding power must not allow themselves to openly display negative, or “evil” qualities, and common people should only display positive, or “good” characteristics. As Machiavelli said in The Prince:
I know everyone will maintain that it would be commendable for a prince to have all the qualities I have just mentioned that are held to be good. But because a prince cannot wholly have or espouse all these qualities, as the human condition will not allow it, he must be wise enough to know how to evade the infamy of the qualities that are thought to be bad, which will cause him to lose his state (Machiavelli 60).
Perhaps the simplest solution to the solve the seemingly perpetual struggle between the two opposing and imaginary ideas of “good” and “evil” is for one person to do what Nietzsche said and create new values for him or herself (provided they are within what society deems acceptable), as “good” and “evil” are just terms describing human nature, and are thus devoid of any real meaning. As Nietzsche so famously said: “Gleichnisse sind alle Namen von Gut und Boese: sie sprechen nicht aus, sie winken nur. Ein Tor, welcher von ihnen Wissen will (Nietzsche 78).” Verily, fools are those who strive to live “good” lives and fools are those who give in to their “wickedness”.


Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Essential Writings of Machiavelli. Trans. Peter Constantine. New
York: The Modern Library, 2007.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Also Sprach Zarathustra. Frankfurt am Main: insel taschenbuch, 1976.

Obvious exits: [out] to Odeon, [down] to cubiculum
levaminis, [north] to Prima
Porta VRomana, [back] to secluded corner
HospesII says, "hi"
rhetstudent1302 Hospes has arrived.
pastafarian Hospes has arrived.
Nick_Hospes says, "obscure browsers ftw"
HospesII has disconnected.
The housekeeper arrives to remove HospesII.
HospesXVI has arrived.
HospesXIV has arrived.
cj_Hospes has disconnected.
The housekeeper arrives to remove cj_Hospes.
cj Hospes has arrived.
Lukebluefive Hospes (idle 11m) has arrived.
Ilahe Hospes (idle 16m) goes out.
HospesXVI has disconnected.
The housekeeper arrives to remove HospesXVI.
Ilahe Hospes (idle 17m) has arrived.
Ilahe_Hospes has disconnected.
The housekeeper arrives to remove Ilahe_Hospes.
Ilahe Hospes has arrived.
Ilahe Hospes goes out.
Ilahe Hospes has arrived.
Ilahe_Hospes says, "Who's finished?"
Nick_Hospes says, "I am"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "Okay, Nick, click on Odeon"
You say, "I am"
Nick Hospes goes out.
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "I am, -nate""
Ilahe_Hospes says, "HospesXXV, click on odeon,
rhetstudent1302 too"
You view Odeon...
.
Nick Hospes is here.
Obvious exits: [west] to Consuls' offices, [in] to
Thermopolium of Scintilla
Ilahe_Hospes says, "go ahead and chat amongst
yourself until more arrive"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "whats up guys?""
Nick_Hospes says, "I'm a bit tired"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "meto, its the
beginning of the week""
Ilahe_Hospes says, "Okay... so"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "Now that you've read the
article, you have some questions
to answer. They're on the board."
Ilahe_Hospes says, "The first is: What theory do you
think the author is using
in this article?"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "Everyone needs to participate...
I would like you to
copy/paste as much of the log as you can in your
journal to prove your
participation"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "superego and the id""
You say, "human nature: conflict of id and
super-ego"
HospesXIV says, "I agree"
HospesXIV says, "a person only does such things in
order to somehow benefit
themseves"
HospesXIV says, "themselves*"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, ""The author seems to
support the idea that in
competition vs. cooperation, competition is the
most common"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "and that external
cultural factors influence our
current ideology""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, ""Yes, that author also
used the conflict between
the id and the superego to somewhat explain why
competition is so prevalent"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, ""In addition, the author
mentions not only how
evolution is on-going, especially in the realm of
ideas, but also how the
best way to survive is not to cooperate, but to
compete."
HospesXIV says, "ofcourse the world is structured
around competition thats how
we advance "
You say, "The author also mentions that competition
is a nature factor whereas
cooperation is on the nurture side"
Nick_Hospes says, "this is because for thousands of
years, man survived by
being the best a competeing"
Nick_Hospes says, "that is my limb"
You say, "indeed. So why change now?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "Yes, the author does
mention that."
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "He man really survived
all these years by
competition?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "Has?"
Nick_Hospes says, "I don't mean after the dawn of
civilization, I mean before
that"
HospesXIV says, "man has survived by cooperation but
has advanced by
competition"
Nick_Hospes says, "when we reached the same basic
genetic point"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "Ok, well, I don't think
we have many records about
how they lived so far back"
You say, "cavepaintings?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "what about science today?
It is not advanced by
much except cooperation,a s far as I can see"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "but where cave paintings
made before or after
civilization? I don't think there is enough
evidence to say either way"
HospesXIV says, "well cooperation also plays a huge
part in advancement"
Nick_Hospes says, "there is a distinction between
advancement of the
individual or society as a whole, the individual
advances by competition"
You say, "it is. It's impossible to study the
advanced fields of science on
your own. You need people to help you"
HospesXIV says, "but once you have acquired the
knowledge you are able to
advance on your own"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "Ok, but with no realiable
dating techniques taht go
back that far, how can you ensure your "findings or
deductions" are coorect?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I see waht you mean, that
is certainly true to a
certain extent"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "the switch from
cooperation to competition
happened when hunter gather cultures discovered
agriculture and began to
settle in one place""
You say, "C14 dating is close enough. The margin of
error is around 50 years,
which is insignificant when it comes to dating
things that are thousands of
years old"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "but doesn't science and
tedchnologies always
advance quicker as a group? I personally know
coding works much faster and
better as a team"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right, but how far back
are caveman paintings?"
HospesXIV says, "but again thats for the advancement
of society not ones sef"
HospesXIV says, "self*"
Nick_Hospes says, "science and techonology are
cooperation, but in society the
individual must compete with others to win based on
the nature of our system."
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "yet farmers cooperate
with their buyersm they don't
compete with them"
Nick_Hospes says, "well, the government buys what
the poeple don't or sets the
prices, but thats a different problem"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I'm igoring the
government, we are talking about
soon after men turned into farmers"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "farmers as whole
compete against eachother""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "as someone mentioned, I
wa keeping the previous
train of thought"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "that is true, but they
only compete with similar
producers"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "competition happens, but
how prevalent is it?"
You say, "they comptete against anybody that might
threaten their existance"
Nick_Hospes says, "since there are very few
individually owned farms, not that
often"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I think that far too much
emphasis has been placed
on competition, in an attempt to gain more support
for evolution..."
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "selling agriculture is
a form of capitalism,
therefor here has to exist competition"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "there*""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right, but how do
bussnesses and orgainzations
produce things? or even farmers for that matter?"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "the use of labor""
HospesXIV says, "they produce what is most needed"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "not cooperation""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "everyone has to hire
others to work for them to
make products"
Nick_Hospes says, "they pay people to cooperate to
produce things"
HospesXIV says, "yes but they also advance because
of other competitions"
Nick_Hospes says, "but the people had to compete the
get the job"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "no not cooperate, they
pay people to do things
for them""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "the people who work for a
farmer during harvest or
for a bussness don't compete against it, they
cooperate with fellow workers"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "theres a large
difference between cooperation
and doing something for money""
HospesXIV says, "if everyone only cooperated the
world would never advance
because you would never have the need to do better
than someone else"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "it is merely an exchange
of services"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "what?"
You say, "exactly. Just look how much technology
advances in wars"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "you need to look on a
larger scale, not
individual famrs""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "you don't realy belive
that"
Nick_Hospes says, "necessity is the mother of
invention"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right, and if only
cooperation existed, there would
be less need to advance"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "but it doesn't"
HospesXIV says, "thats where the role of competition
comes in "
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "in each company, there is
a huge amount of
employees, usually, and they all mostly work in
cooperation with each other
in various ways to make certain things"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "they are given money for
their time and effort"
Nick_Hospes says, "they compete for the promotion"
HospesXIV says, "but they also compete with each
other to do better than their
co workers so they can get better pay or better
positions"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "then the company competes
with similar companies
that produce simialr productss to give the best
product for the lowest pirce"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "yes, employees are in
constant competition for
job security""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "that's true too, but it
doesn't interferre with the
cooperation, it usually helps it"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "every person in a
company has their own motive""
You view Thermopolium of Scintilla...
.
Obvious exits: [out] to Odeon, [down] to cubiculum
levaminis, [north] to Prima
Porta VRomana, [back] to secluded corner
Ilahe_Hospes says, "but how can memes be used in the
opposite manner?"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "give an example"
You view Odeon...
.
Nick Hospes, rhetstudent1302_Hospes,
Lukebluefive_Hospes, and HospesXIV are
here.
Obvious exits: [west] to Consuls' offices, [in] to
Thermopolium of Scintilla
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "at the same time that you
are competing with fellow
employees"
HospesXIV says, "so competition and cooperation both
help a bussiness in their
own ways"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right"
You say, "isn't that the basis for human existance?
Cooperate when neccesary
and compete when possible?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "It might be, but i
frankly think that is backwards"
Nick_Hospes says, "and try to come out above all of
the others"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "how so?""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "It's too individualistic,
haven't you heard live
together, or die alone? people are always stronger
in groups, that one of the
reasons society exists"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "yes that is true, but
they always in competition
with those groups""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "So I cooperate when
possible, compete when
necessary (like in my job)"
Nick_Hospes says, "but if noone stands above the
crowd, the society will just
be a mob of nothing"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "there is always both in a
well-ordered society"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "yes i agree""
HospesXIV says, "ofcourse you always try to do
better than your collegues"
You say, "agreed"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "true""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "if one or the other is
missing, you either have
every man for himself, or everyone is content with
how it is"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "so basically, you
cooperate untill you find a
chance to advance yourself""
Nick_Hospes says, "then you stand up out of the mob
and do something"
You say, "isn't that just competition in deisguise?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "maybe, depends on the
situation, but generally, yes"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "thats what i was
thinking""
HospesXIV says, "i agree"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "still, it's a different
goal, I seek to cooperate
primarily"
Nick_Hospes says, "competition is definatly a
positive, it pushes people to
see what they are truly capable of"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "cooperation seems like
a false idea to make it
seem that you are not trying to get a leg up on
everyone elsse"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "If it comes to a tight
spot, when I need to
compete, I will"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "well, some are, and some
aren't"
HospesXIV says, "when i see an opportunity to
compete i wil"
You say, "true cooperation just doesn't work. i
mean, just look how miserably
communism has failed (or socialism rather)"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "but you know that
somewhere in unconcious there
that driving force to suceed""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "you can't always tell
somone's actions, and you can
never know them for certain"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "sorry i cant see what
im typing sometimes it
doesnt make sense""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right, but some of that
driving force can be
fulfilled by helping a group of peope suceed with
you"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "that's ok, np"
Nick_Hospes says, "cooperation seems to be acting in
the best interets of
other while competition is my acting in my best
interest"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "i think everyone has
the hidden desire to do
better then other around you""
Nick_Hospes says, "I don't hide that"
You say, "me neither"
HospesXIV says, "exactly what the article talks
about"
Nick_Hospes says, "I want to win"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "exactly"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "so cooperation is
false""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "that's why cooperation is
more benefitial to
society (and a good solution to the crazy drivers
on the raod each day)"
Nick_Hospes says, "I will tell you all right now, I
want to be richer and more
successful than all of you"
Nick_Hospes says, "combined"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "well see...""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "oh, yes, everyone has a
desire to suceed"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "haha""
HospesXIV says, "you cooperate for certain things
such as keeping your job and
friends"
HospesXIV says, "but on real you are competing while
you are cooperating"
You say, "but aren't those just assets?"
HospesXIV says, "by becoming well known and
considered good among otheres"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "but couldn't you also
look at it as cooperating
while you are competing?"
HospesXIV says, "you are putting yourself higher
than those that arent
cooperating"
HospesXIV says, "exactly my point"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "it seems that
cooperation is tool used in
competition""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "well, if some aren't
cooperating when I am, it's
not my goal to get higher than them, 90% of the
time"
Ilahe_Hospes arrives from Thermopolium of Scintilla
Ilahe_Hospes quietly enters.
Nick_Hospes says, "you tolerate cooperation to
advance yourself"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I see them as tools used
when the other doesn't
work"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I'm sorry... I only
tolerate competition, that's
why I like working with others, playing in
team-sports"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I don't like competition
nearly as much, nor see it
as improtant as cooperation"
Nick_Hospes says, "I'm not talking about recreation"
Nick_Hospes says, "social cooperation is completely
different"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "like the article said
people form groups to
compete against other groups""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "ok, I know, I was just
mentioning how these ideas
show forth in me, and others, in other ways"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right, but those groups
cooperate within themselves
at the same time they are competing with the other
groups"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "agreed""
You say, "true"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "so the formation of
cooperation becomes once
again a toll for competiton""
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "tool*"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "so it seems to me, at
least, that they might not be
ones used to the exclusion fo the other, but they
have different goals,
different uses"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "i disagree""
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "and competition needs
cooperation in order to be
more effective, in the bussness level for example"
You say, "or perhaps cooperation is just a moral
excuse to justify competetive
behavior"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "they are both used for
advancement in self in
some way or another"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "lol, maybe"
You say, "like doing something for the supposed
benefit of others"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "who has any morals
anymore? they don't teach them
anymore, as far as i know"
HospesXIV says, "well hidden in cooperation is
competition"
Nick_Hospes says, "they tried at my catholic high
school"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "i have values, i
wouldnt say morals"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I think the inverse is
true as well"
Nick_Hospes says, "didn't really work"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "values are different,
that's why you changed the
word. Values dont' have to hold you to things the
way morals do"
You say, "but morals are different from person to
person"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "true true"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "i try to live up to
those values on a daily
basis "
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right, because morals are
not absolute, "
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "agreed"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "and neither are values"
Nick_Hospes says, "religious groups would disagree"
HospesXIV says, "true"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "thats true"
Nick_Hospes says, "you all religious?"
You say, "but different religious groups also preach
different morals,
sometimes even within themselves"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "which is sad because
most religion is the same"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "really? i don't think so,
they would say that the
correct set of morals are absolute"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "just change the names"
Nick_Hospes says, "well, I wish people would realize
that christians and
muslims talk to the same invinisble man in the sky"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "Hospes XXV, right,
rhetstudent, how are they the
same?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "Who told you that?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "where's your proof?"
Nick_Hospes says, "my proof?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "I you can't prove that
statement, nor can you prove
that Christians and muslims, Hundus, and Catholics
all pray to the same God,
or believe the same things"
HospesXIV says, "well we all beleive in one greater
god or source that is
above us"
Nick_Hospes says, "aethesits don't"
You say, "the fact that there have always been some
prophets who basically
talked about the same thing. Some have just found
more followers which lead
to the religions we have today. i'm not at all
religious btw..."
HospesXIV says, "i dont agree that its the same
god."
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "yes, but that's doesn't
mean we are all praying to
the smae God, or belive in the same God"
HospesXIV says, "they have different names for the
god but ultimately it is a
higher source"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "true"
You say, "but all religions believe in the same
thing: a creator "
Nick_Hospes says, "islam and christianity have the
same holy people, moses,
jesus, elija"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "especially when every
religion clima that their god
is different somehow, that he/she wants something
differnet than the others"
Nick_Hospes says, "the only difference is mohammed"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "hello"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "but both islam and
Christianity go different places
with those people and ideas"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "Thank you for so diligently
typing away as I helped the
others"
HospesXIV says, "the only difference is different
beleifs over time"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "how so"
Nick_Hospes says, "yes, but they have the same god"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "we were having a lot of trouble
getting conversation
started over there"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "I hope you logged at least some
of it so I can read it :)"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "have you answered all the
questions?"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "the universal belief in a
cretor doens't mean that
they all belive in the same one"
Nick_Hospes says, "I'll copy the whole log right
now"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "oh... not wuite"
HospesXIV says, "well ultimately i beleive we a
started at the same place and
with different beleifs ended up with different
religions"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "not all of it will work in
backlog, but some will"
Ilahe_Hospes says, "once you've answered all the
questions and logged it in
livejournal, you may go :)"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "alright"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "how convicing do you
think the article was?"
rhetstudent1302_Hospes says, "semi-convincing i
never believe anything the
first time i read it"
HospesXIV says, "i beleive it was convincing it
pointed out the nature of man
and the reason for what we do and why"
You say, "not too convincing. i just don't believe
that cooperation exists"
Nick_Hospes says, "it was fairly convincing"
HospesXIV says, "i believe both cooperation and
competition exists and
coincides"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "lol, same here. I was
somewhat disturbed that the
author mentioned evolution, the Game of life, and
competition and cooperation
as being equality proven to be true"
Nick_Hospes says, "I would say that one lead the to
the other"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "But I agree with the fact
that competition and
cooperation both exist in life and are both
necessary"
Nick_Hospes says, "we would be nothing without both"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "right"
Nick_Hospes says, "we would have to actually talk
for starters"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "yeah"
Nick_Hospes says, "because this software wouldn't
exist"
Lukebluefive_Hospes says, "without both, right"

Annotated Bibliography

Alighieri, Dante. The Divine Comedy. Trans. Allen Mandelbaum. New York: Everyman’s

Library, 1995.

In Inferno, Dante describes his descent through hell along with his guide Virgil. While his book appears to be a deeply religious warning to humans of what awaits them in the afterlife for their sins on the first glance, it is actually Dante’s way of criticizing his political enemies without fear of retribution. For example, he places characters from his home city of Florence in various places throughout hell to not only mock them, but also tell of the decadence and corruption that has befallen his city. Furthermore, he devotes an entire circle just for the corrupt religious leaders, the simonists as he calls them to show his discontent with the catholic church, and places the heroes and philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome in Limbo, the first layer of hell, stating that despite his (and all humanists for that matter) admiration, they are not accepted by the church or society.

 

Dawkins, Richard. “Is Science a Religion?.” Humanist. 1997. 05 November 2007.

<http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html>

In his essay Is Science a Religion, Richard Dawkins explores the differences between religion and actual science. He states that the two share distinct similarities but are different otherwise. The main similarity is that both seek to answer the question of where we come from. Religion answers this with creationism, science counters with evolution, which according to Dawkins is a fact and not a mere theory. He then suggests that if religious theories like creationism should be taught in public schools, science should also be taught in religious courses (which is part of public education in the UK), or at the very least all theories of creation should be taught.

 

Dawkins, Richard. “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God.” The Huffington Post. 23 October

2006. 05 November 2007. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-

almost-certainl_b_32164.html>

In this essay, Richard Dawkins criticizes religion for its shortsightedness and religious leaders for their insistence that their views are the only acceptable ones. He later on refutes theories in favor of the existence of a god, which are mostly by Aquinas. While his essay is interesting to read and it is certainly more sensible than the religious opposition to his claims, he appears to be no more willing to compromise on his views (though he has no reason to do so) than religious fundamentalists, which makes him sounded just as narrow minded as the religious opposition, costing him some credibility.  

 

The Godfather. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Perf. Marlow Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan. 1972.

            DVD. Paramount. 2004.

The Godfather (based on the book by Mario Puzo) is often regarded as being one of the best movies ever made. Its content however is even more significant than the superb cinematography. The movie tells of Michael Corleone’s rise to power within the mafia in the late 1940s. Even though Michael turns from being a pacifistic war veteran into a ruthless murderer and kingpin, one cannot help but feel that his actions and decisions are justifiable. This movie perfectly illustrates the idea that good and evil are interchangeable, as Michael’s actions, while despicable, only fulfill his goals and secure his and his family’s safety.        

 

Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

In The Lord of the Flies, William Golding describes the downfall of society using a group of crash landed children as an example, based on his experiences while fighting in ww2. The children first cooperate in order to be rescued, but quickly fall apart into two groups, one preoccupied with surviving in the short run (Jack’s hunters) and the other concerned with being found eventually (Ralph’s group). The two opposing factions begin fighting and killing each other until a British ship arrives to rescue them. This book depicts the underlying evil nature of humans (=survival instinct) and that given the situation, humans will resort back to their animalistic instincts.

 

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: First Harper Perenial Modern Clasics, 2006.

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley describes what appears to be a utopian society. However, upon closer inspection, the apparent paradise is the exact opposite of ideal. The humans living there are bred to fit into distinct social classes, ranging from the highly intelligent alphas to the quasi sentient epsilons. This book illustrates the implications of strict social Darwinism, the decline of true culture and the absence of any challenges. Huxley uses the savage John as an example to illustrate the contrast between “real” humans and the society of the brave new world. The savages are most likely Native Americans, whom Huxley apparently regarded as the epiphany of spirituality and culture.

 

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Essential Writings of Machiavelli. Trans. Peter Constantine. New

York: The Modern Library, 2007.

In The Prince, Niccolo. Machiavelli describes the best behavior for a prince and how one might best gain control of a principality and further maintain control. He states that a prince is above any sort of moral or ethical restrictions and is free to make any decisions he deems necessary for his political survival and the stability of his domain. Machiavelli heavily uses Ceasare Borgia as an example for this kind of behavior, which is significant in the sense that Ceasare Borgia was a bloodthirsty tyrant, who was the complete opposite of what we consider to be an effective ruler today. The point is that sometimes a ruler might have to set morals aside.

 

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Also Sprach Zarathustra. Frankfurt am Main: insel taschenbuch, 1976.

(note: I’ll find an English translation later) In his Magnus Opus, Nietzsche presents himself as the prophet Zarathustra who preaches a massage of existentialism, of self-overcoming, of the Uebermensch (or over-human), of a reversal of all morals, of self determination and of the falsehood of all religions. Nietzsche also explores human psychology and the society of his day and even politics. The book is very interesting to read, but Nietzsche doesn’t focus on one particular subject or idea for very long. Instead, he uses page long mini chapters to convey one of his ideas, then jumping onto the next topic. These chapters are in no particular order however.

 

 

 

 

 

Shamanism: Shamanism is the world’s oldest believe and is centered around spirit worship. The spirits can be good or evil and a shaman can either control or communicate with these spirits.

Totemism: Totemism is the worship of an animal or object that represents another group of people.

Animism: Animism refers to the believe that a “soul” inhibits every object, both living and inanimate.

Emile Durkheim: Durkheim was a French sociologist whose work ultimately led to the development of modern day sociology and anthropology.

Claude Levi-Strauss: Strauss was a French sociologist who developed structuralism, which is a method to understand society.

Collective consciousness: The term was coined by Carl Jung and refers to a set of symbols and their meanings that is ubiquitous in all cultures.

Uroboros: The uroboros depicts a snake eating its tail. It generally symbolizes eternity or unity.

Anima & Animus: According to Jung, the anima is a person’s true inner self. The anima is the inner female of a male and the animus is the inner male of a female.

Shadow Side: According to Jung, the shadow side is the part of the mind that contains repressed thoughts. It must be overcome to further the character development.

Monomyth: Also known as the hero myth, the Monomyth describes a person who has to overcome trials in order to advance in life.

Transpersonal psychology: Transpersonal psychology deals with the transcendental aspects of human nature.

Communitas: Communitas refer to any form of living in a society which is marked by rites of passage.

Carl Jung: Carl Jung was a Swiss psychologist who worked together with Freud. They eventually disagreed over the meaning of dreams.

Depth Psychology: Depth psychology seeks to examine the parts of human thinking behind the subconscious.

Semiotics/structuralism: These terms refer to how the meaning of symbols is constructed by a group.

Rite of passage: A ritual that marks an individual’s transition from childhood to adulthood and as such full membership of society.

Fetish: In anthropology, a fetish is an object that is believed to hold power over other people or objects.

Taboo: A taboo is an action or behavior that is considered undesirable by society and is thus discouraged or simply made illegal.

Archetype: An archetype is a reoccurring image that is more complex than a common stereotype.

 

In this essay, I will compare the theories that humans are either good or evil, or are at least classified as such by society, based on how the meaning of these terms have changed throughout history in the western world. The nature side of the argument is evil perspective, which states that humans are evil as they only care about themselves and not about the rest of society and posses negative characteristics. The nurture side on the other hand is the argument that humans are good, and as such are altruistic, have qualities that are considered good by others and will put society before themselves because they are brought up this way.  The median between these opposing arguments is that good and evil are just empty words, whose meanings have been changed so often that they have lost all significance. While the topic is hardly of any real importance in everyday life, it does present an old philosophical question.  Evidence of each side can be easily seen in several philosophical works. For each theory, I will present several examples from both real life and philosophical works.  The essay will begin with the nature theory that humans are exclusively egocentric and self serving, followed by some examples. The next section will be about the nurture theory that humans are more society oriented followed by examples. The final section will consist of the mediation part, stating that humans are neither good nor evil because these terms cannot be applied to any being as they are devoid of meaning, supported by various sources including Nietzsche.

Erik Erikson: Erikson proposes a total of seven stages of development: Infancy(birth-18 months), Younger Years(18 months-2years), Early Childhood(3-6 years), Middle Childhood(7-12 years), Adolescence(12-18 years), Early Adulthood(10-34 years), Middle Adulthood(35-60 years), and Later Adulthood(60 years-death). Trust vs mistrust is the main conflict in infancy. The child must learn to trust himself and his surroundings in order to become well adjusted in society. During the Younger Years, the child learns shame and doubt as well as self-consciousness. A sense of autonomy also develops during that time. Initiative vs guilt is the main conflict during the Early Childhood. Guilt leads to the development of morals and initiative leads to what we consider childish curiosity, or how the world works. During Middle Childhood, the child learns their strengths and weakness. A person’s ego identity develops during adolescence, which means a person will decide on their future aspirations. Isolation vs Intimacy is the main conflict during Early Adulthood. Generativity vs Stagnation is the main conflict during Middle Adulthood. Generativity is not simply about having children, but also about doing work valued by society. Ego Integrity vs Despair is the conflict of Later Adulthood. Despair refers to the loss of friends and family members and self-sufficiency. Ego integrity is the acceptance of these events.

 

Jean Piaget: According to Piaget, there are four stages of development. The Sensorimotor period is the first stage and lasts from birth to about two years. During that time, the infant discovers their surrounding through their senses and limited motor skills. The Sensorimotor period has six sub stages: Reflex (birth-1 month), in which the infant explores the world through inherent reflexes. Primary Circular Reactions (1-4 months), in which the infant learns limited motor skill coordination. Secondary Circular Reactions (4-8 months), in which the infant will intentionally interact with the environment. Coordination of Reactions (8-12 months), in which the infant will begin to understand the properties of objects. Tertiary Circular Reactions (12-18 months), in which the infant will begin to use trial and error experimentation. Early Representational Thought (18-24 months) is the final sub stage in which the child will begin to understand the world through thought rather than action. The second developmental stage is the Preoperational Stage, which lasts from about two to six years of age. In this stage, children further develop their language skills. Children are not yet able to consider the point of view of other people, which leads to egocentrism. Role playing is also common during this stage. The Concrete Operational is the third stage of development. It lasts from the age of seven to about eleven. During this stage, the child begins to think logically, however abstract scenarios still present problems. The final stage is Formal Operational Stage, which lasts from age twelve through adulthood. Linguistic and logical skills finalize themselves and the person is able to think through abstract scenarios.

 

John Bowlby: John Bowlby proposed the Attachment Theory. Attachment theory deals with how the attention an infant receives and how this impacts the person’s later life. There are four types of attachment that deal with both the person demanding attention and the person giving the attention. The person giving the attention is usually the mother and the child receives the attention. The first type is Secure Attachment. Secure attachment occurs if the attention giver gives prompt responses to the infant’s demands and the child reacts positively to the attention giver. Avoidant Attachment is the second type. In this type, the attention giver gives less attention to the child and thus encourages independent behavior. This leads the child to develop less attachment towards the attention giver. The next type is Ambivalent Attachment. In this case, the attention giver is inconsistent with the amount of attention and the child receives on a regular basis. This leads the child to develop a distance towards the attention giver and an inability to cope with life’s stresses. The final type is Disorganized Attachment, which is associated with mistreatment. The child is not able to develop a coherent coping mechanism.

 

 

 

 

 

Visual Analysis of The Last Samurai

 

The Last Samurai is a fictional movie that relies on a historical background. The targeted audience is mainly younger people, as more educated people will quickly recognize the numerous historical inaccuracies in the movie. The story of this movie takes place Japan in the latter part of the nineteenth century and centers on Nathan Algren, a captain in the US army who is plagued with the memories of the atrocities he committed when fighting the Native Americans. He is hired by Omura, an ambitious advisor to the Japanese emperor, to train the newly founded Japanese army in western fighting styles with modern weapons and also to crush a rebellion led by the elusive Katsumoto, a samurai leader who fights against the new government as he believes it is modernizing too quickly. After leading a group of inexperienced soldiers against the samurai, Algren is captured in battle. He then spends about half a year in the samurai village where he learns to appreciate the ancient Japanese culture and traditions. After Algren is released and returned to Tokyo, he becomes disillusioned with his former employer’s plans and switches sides after a failed attempt to kill him and helps his former captor escape. Katsumoto, Algren, and the remaining samurai gather for a final stand against the new Japanese army. Algren is the only survivor of the battle; he does however manage to kill his hated former superior, Colonel Bagley, before the battle was over. Following the battle, Algren visits the emperor one last time to tell him Katsumoto’s final wishes. After the confrontation, Emperor Meiji finally takes charge and puts the overzealous Omura back into his place by offering him Katsumoto’s sword, a symbol that he should kill himself should the shame be too great for him to bear. The movie concludes with Algren walking towards the horizon, most likely returning to the samurai village to live out his days, although the movie does not specify his fate.

 

While the movie does not heavily rely on symbolism, it does present the samurai in a favorable light. Samurai have become synonymous with tradition and bravery in recent years. This is probably due to the recent increased popularity of ancient Japanese culture and traditions throughout the world. The movie depicts the events of the Satsuma Rebellion, although it takes considerable liberties when it comes to historical accuracy. The samurai of the Satsuma clan were indeed dissatisfied with the politics of the government and eventually began a rebellion which later became known as the Satsuma rebellion, however, they were by no means against the modernization of Japan, and relied quite heavily on western weaponry and military tactics. The imperial army was also by no means as inept and inexperienced as the earlier scenes of the movie might lead to suggest. In fact, the army had quite a number of samurai, who joined as volunteers and was never modeled after the US army or used musket like weapons (Dresner).

 

The main social setting of the movie is in late nineteenth century Japan, in a time period known as the Meiji Restoration. Under the reign of Emperor Meiji, Japan began to emerge as a new power in Asia following a long period of total, self-imposed isolation. The economy, society and the military were being modeled after the most powerful nations in the world at that time, France, Great Britain, the US, and Germany (“Japanese history: Meiji Period”). The modernization was certainly justified, as the isolationist policy left Japan at a development level comparable to the middle ages in Europe, both in technology and politics. Prior to 1853, the Dutch were the only westerners allowed access to Japanese markets with strict restrictions: They were only allowed access to a single remote port, and all foreign literature was banned until 1720 (“Japanese history: Edo Period”).

 

The main conflict of the movie comes down to tradition versus modernization, as well as the corruption of the traditional Japanese culture caused by globalization, the growing spread of culture and technology from the western world (Doyle and Smith). While Japan was by no means the only country under the influence of western nations, it was exceptional nonetheless: No other country in the world has industrialized as quickly as the Japanese empire in the late nineteenth century, and the consequences are evident in the movie, although its historical accuracy is debatable at best.

 

Several scenes exemplify the conflict between the isolated lifestyle of traditional Japan and the western world. One of the first scenes of the movie takes place on the training field. The Japanese soldiers are being trained to use firearms. Not one of the soldiers was able to hit the target, though the inherent inaccuracy of the muskets used may have played a part in that. These soldiers are all conscripted former peasants or farmers, who have probably never used or even seen a rifle before in their lives. The confrontation between the new soldiers, who most likely lived traditional lives prior to being conscripted into the imperial army and western weapons perfectly exemplifies the ongoing conflict of the movie. A new large army naturally made the traditional samurai warriors obsolete, which is one example of the slow but steady demise of the traditional Japanese culture.

 

Another scene that shows the conflict between the old and the new is the first battle scene. The Japanese army under the command of Nathan Algren and General Hasegawa fights against the rebellious samurai for the first time. Even though the soldiers carry guns and outnumber the samurai, the soldiers lose their discipline when they hear the samurai approaching on horses, which leads them to fire blindly at the approaching riders. The charging samurai use this opportunity to break the imperial ranks and to force the soldiers to retreat. The battle concludes with the defeat of the Japanese soldiers and the capture of Algren. Before losing consciousness, Algren witnesses the death of Hasegawa at the hands of Katsumoto. Seeing this apparent barbaric act, Algren understandably develops a negative attitude towards the traditions of his captors, which will last through half of the movie. This battle shows how the untrained soldiers, despite superior weapons and numbers, were still not able to openly confront their former feudal masters.  

 

A more political/social instead of militaristic example of the changing Japanese society is the scene when Katsumoto returns to the emperor’s side in parliament. Katsumoto enters the room carrying his two swords and approaches Omura. The outraged Omura demands that Katsumoto remove his swords, as required by law. Katsumoto replies that he had always protected the parliament with his swords and that tradition entitled him to circumvent the newly established laws. Omura insists on Katsumoto’s compliance, but he refuses stating that only the emperor can order him to do anything. When Emperor Meiji remains silent, Katsumoto refuses to comply and is arrested. This scene is the perfect example of how the country had not just changed in terms of its military, but also how the political system of Japan changed.

 

The final battle, which actually occurred similarly to the movie, is the ultimate testament to how much Japan had changed. Proud warriors who fought each other to the death in a highly ritualized manner turned into a massive army of highly disciplined, well-equipped conscripted soldiers. A group of about five hundred samurai, with Nathan Algren fighting alongside them, on the other hand had to rely on longbows, swords and defensive tactics. The battle ends with the defeat of the samurai. Katsumoto takes his own life in the classic seppuku style. The soldiers are so moved by this valiant display of courage that they bow before the dying Katsumoto and remove their helmets. This shows that despite the radical modernization and restructuring of the Japanese society, the core of the samurai culture endured: death with honor is more desirable than living with the shame of defeat.

 

The last scene I would like to discuss is one of the final scenes of the movie: Nathan Algren’s last conversation with Emperor Meiji. Algren tells Meiji about Katsumoto, his life and his legacy. Meiji finally sees what his grand restoration has caused and promises to retain the national identity despite the utilizing the modern infrastructure, hardware, and consumer goods. This scene shows that while the conflict was ultimately resolved, the traditional side did not win, but did not completely lose either. Overall, instead of being destroyed, the traditional culture took on a more subliminal role in society. The entire nation of Japan would forever be changed, since tradition and modernization simple cannot coexist in harmony. The fact that it took the lives of countless samurai to reach this uneven sided compromise is evidence of this.

 

Although Emperor Meiji kept his promise, the cultural identity of Japan has been forever changed, which can be clearly seen in history: Japan turned from an isolated, fragmented empire dominated by feudal lords into a militaristic expansionist empire in the first half of the twentieth century, and then into an economic giant in the later part of the century with a thoroughly westernized culture centered around commercialism and consumerism.

                                                                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Dresner, Jonathan. “How true is Tom Cruise’s The Last Samurai.” History News Network. . 26

September 2007 <http://hnn.us/articles/2746.html>

 

“Japanese history: Edo Period.” Japan-guide.com. 18 November 2002. 26 September 2007

<http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2128.html>

 

“Japanese history: Meiji Period.” Japan-guide.com. 09 November 2002. 26 September 2007

<http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2130.html>

 

The Last Samurai. Dir. Edward Zwick. Ken Watanabe, Tom Cruise, Masato Harada,

            Shichinosuke Nakamura. 2003. DVD. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2004.

 

Doyle, Michele and Smith, Mark. “the theory and experience of globalization.” Encyclopedia of Informal

Education. 21 September 2007. 26 September 2007 <http://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htm>

                                                                    

 

 

 

The Last Samurai

 

The Last Samurai is a fictional movie that relies on a historical background. The targeted audience is mainly younger people, as more educated people will quickly recognize the numerous historical inaccuracies in the movie. The story of this movie takes place in 19^th century Japan and centers on Nathan Algren, a captain in the US army who is plagued with the memories of the atrocities he committed when fighting the Native Americans. He is hired by Omura, an ambitious advisor to the Japanese emperor, to train the newly founded Japanese army in western fighting styles with modern weapons and also to crush a rebellion by the elusive Katsumoto, a samurai leader who fights against the new government as he believes it is modernizing too quickly. After leading a group of inexperienced soldiers against the samurai, Algren is captured in battle. He then spends about half a year in the samurai village where he learns to appreciate the ancient Japanese culture and traditions. After Algren is released and returned to Tokyo, he becomes disillusioned with his former employer’s plans and switches sides after he helped his former captor escape. Katsumoto, Algren, and the remaining samurai gather for a final stand against the new Japanese army. Algren is the only survivor of the battle, he does manage to kill his hated former superior, Colonel Bagley, before the battle was over. Following the battle, Algren visits the emperor one last time to tell him Katsumoto’s final wishes. After the confrontation, Emperor Meiji finally takes charge and puts the overzealous Omura back into his place. The movie concludes with Algren returning to the samurai village to live out his days.

 

While the movie does not heavily rely on symbolism, it does present the samurai in a very favorable light. This is probably due to the recent increased popularity of Japanese culture throughout the world. The movie depicts the events of the Satsuma Rebellion, although it takes considerable liberties when it comes to historical accuracy. The samurai of the Satsuma clan were indeed dissatisfied with the politics of the government and eventually began a rebellion which later became known as the Satsuma rebellion, however, they were by no means against the modernization of Japan, and relied quite heavily on western weaponry and military tactics. The imperial army was also by no means as inept and inexperienced as the earlier scenes of the movie might lead to suggest. In fact, the army had quite a number of samurai, who joined as volunteers and was never modeled after the US army or used musket like weapons (Satsuma ).

 

The main social setting of the movie is in late 19^th century Japan, in a time period known as the Meiji Restoration. Under the reign of Emperor Meiji, Japan began to emerge as a new power in Asia. The economy, society and the military were modeled after western nations during that time (Meiji). The modernization was certainly justified, as Japan existed in almost total isolation, which made it potentially vulnerable to western imperialism. Prior to 1853, the Dutch were the only westerners allowed access to Japanese markets with strict restrictions. They were only allowed access to one port, and all foreign books were banned until 1720 (Edo).

 

The main conflict of the movie comes down to tradition versus modernization, as well as the corruption of the traditional Japanese culture caused by globalization, the growing spread of culture and technology from the western world (globalization). No other country in the world has industrialized as quickly as the Japanese empire in the late 19^th century, and the consequences are evident in the movie, although its historical accuracy is debatable at best.

 

Several scenes exemplify the conflict between the isolated lifestyle of traditional Japan and the western world. One of these scenes takes place on the training field. The Japanese soldiers are being trained to use firearms. Not one of the soldiers was able to hit the target, though the inherent inaccuracy of the muskets used may have played a part in that. These soldiers are all conscripted former peasants or farmers, who have never used or even seen a rifle before in their lives. The confrontation between the new soldiers, who probably lived traditional lives prior to being conscripted into the imperial army, and modern western weapons perfectly exemplifies the ongoing conflict of the movie. A new large army naturally made the traditional samurai warriors obsolete, which is one example of the demise of the traditional Japanese culture.

 

Another scene that shows the conflict between the old and the new is the first battle scene. The Japanese army under the command of Nathan Algren and General Hasegawa fights against the rebellious samurai for the first time. Even though the soldiers carry guns and outnumber the samurai, the soldiers lose their discipline when they hear the samurai approaching on horses. The charging samurai use this opportunity to break the imperial ranks and to force the soldiers to retreat. The battle concludes with the defeat of the Japanese soldiers and the capture of Algren. This battle shows how the untrained soldiers, despite superior weapons, were still not able to openly confront their former feudal masters.  

 

A more political/social instead of militaristic example of the changing Japanese society is the scene when Katsumoto returns to the emperor’s side in parliament. Katsumoto enters the room carrying his two swords and approaches Omura. The outraged Omura demands that Katsumoto remove his swords. Katsumoto replies that he had always protected the parliament with his swords and that tradition entitled him to circumvent the newly established laws. Omura insists on Katsumoto’s compliance, but he refuses stating that only the emperor can order him to do anything. When Emperor Meiji remains silent, Katsumoto refuses to comply and is arrested. This scene is the perfect example of how the country had not just changed in terms of its military, but also how the political system of Japan changed.

 

The final battle, which actually occurred similarly to the movie, is the ultimate testament to how much Japan had changed. Proud warriors who fought each other to the death in a highly ritualized manner turned into a massive army of highly disciplined, well-equipped conscripted soldiers. A group of about 500 samurai, with Nathan Algren fighting alongside them, on the other hand had to rely on longbows, swords and defensive tactics. The battle ends with the defeat of the samurai. Katsumoto takes his own life in the classic seppuku style. The soldiers are so moved by this valiant display of courage that they bow before the dying Katsumoto and remove their helmets. This shows that despite the radical modernization and restructuring of the Japanese society, the core of the samurai culture endured: death with honor is significantly more desirable than living with the shame of defeat.

 

The final scene I would like to discuss is one of the last scenes of the movie: Nathan Algren’s last conversation with Emperor Meiji. Algren tells Meiji about Katsumoto, his life and his legacy. Meiji finally sees what his grand restoration has caused and promises to retain the national identity despite the utilizing the modern infrastructure, hardware, and consumer goods.

 

Although Emperor Meiji kept his promise, the cultural identity of Japan has been forever changed, which can be clearly seen in history: Japan turned from an isolated, fragmented empire into a militaristic expansionist empire in the first half of the 20^th century, and then into an economic giant in the later part of the century with a westernized culture centered around commercialism and consumerism.

                                                                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2128.html edo era

 

 

http://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htm

 

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2130.html meiji era

 

http://hnn.us/articles/2746.html  satsuma rebellion

 

 

 

Phillip Taenzler
Bowman
Rhet1302-018
28 September 2007

Education Reform

 

My twelve years in public school were probably somewhat different for me than for other people. Most importantly, I didn’t attend any US school until my eight grade year because I still lived in Germany until then. The German school system is rather different from the US system. I shall only describe the differences in secondary education in this essay as the differences are most prevalent here. The school I attended following elementary school (first through fourth grade) was reserved for the gifted, and the curriculum, which included everything from Latin/French to economics to ethics, reflected that(“Faecher”). To say the school was brutal is an understatement. Grades are all important as there are only a few tests throughout the year and only slightly more quizzes. Failing one of the core classes, German, foreign languages, math, history and science classes meant having to repeat the grade (“Faecher”). Furthermore, the score on the Abitur, or final exam, restricted the majors a student could choose. I moved to Texas close to the end of my seventh grade year, and middle and high school seemed very different to me. I loved the idea of being able to customize my schedule with advanced classes according to my interests and talents. I also loved the multitude of clubs and student organizations available. The academic differences were astounding however: Students were treated like little children instead of responsible young adults. I also noticed that despite the numerous motivational signs, the teachers didn’t seem to expect much from their students. The most surprising thing was the standardized tests however. I have never heard of or taken a multiple choice test before, so the concept was completely alien to me. Because of my time at different schools, I have gained some experience of what an effective education consist of, and shall therefore discuss possible ways to correct problems in the educational system and make it more efficient.

 

It is obvious that there are problems in the current educational system. The results of the Pisa study and the TIMSS, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies,  confirm this, although the overall performance of students has improved from 1999 to 2003 (Comparing NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA in Mathematics and Science). While only the results from the 2003 Pisa study were available, the results still speak for themselves: American schools are behind the rest of the developed world, with the exception of Greece, Italy, Mexico, Portugal and Turkey. Hungary and Poland achieved the same overall average result as the United States (Comparing NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA in Mathematics and Science). The PISA study report states something similar in that at the “other end of the scale, over a quarter of students are not proficient beyond Level 1 in Italy, Portugal and the United States, over a third in Greece and over half in Mexico and Turkey (Top-performer Finland Improves Further in PISA Survey as Gap Between Countries).” The problems I see with the educational system are the standardized tests, the low expectations teachers seem to have of their students, the infantile treatment of students, the projects, which depending on grade level generally involve more work from the parents than from the students themselves, and finally the ever popular “busy work”.

 

These problems need to be looked at individually to come up with possible solutions to each one. The biggest problem I see with public education are standardized tests, like the SAT, ACT and TAKS, to name just a few. These tests do not really measure a student’s ability to understand the subject, but rather their ability to guess and eliminate answers they deem false. The TAKS test is especially problematic as the school’s funding depends on the student’s overall achievement, which means most of the curriculum will be centered around that one test. I think the best solution to this would be to simply eliminate the TAKS test as “standardized tests may penalize students that tend to favor deeper approaches to problem solving (Carter).” Some students, who tend to over think problems will thus be penalized, which poses a problem since this test is a requirement for graduation at public schools in Texas. Furthermore, the funding a school receives should be based on student attendance instead of the school’s overall achievement on the TAKS.

 

The SAT and the ACT present a different problem however. Both tests are voluntary, so they do not take up time in the school’s curriculum. College admittance is heavily based on these tests however, which means a student may do horrible in school but get a good score on the SAT, and they will be admitted to college, whereas a student who does very well in school but not so well on the SAT might be rejected. While the option of retaking the test eliminates the “bad-day” factor, some people either can’t afford to take the test again or it simply will not reflect their true talents and abilities. In addition, it is not uncommon for students to cheat on these tests to improve their scores and thus their chances of attending their dream colleges. I think the best solution to this problem would not be to remove these tests, but to decrease their importance in college applications and consequently increase the importance of class rank, student activities and their application essay.

 

Thirdly, there is the issue of multiple choice tests in the school curriculum. I realize that multiple choice tests cannot be eliminated altogether, since teachers simply do not have the time to grade a hundred short answer tests or quizzes. Instead I think the best solution would be to have tests consisting of multiple choice questions and short answers, each weighing 50% of the total grade. For example, a test in a science class would consist of a set of multiple choice questions about the concept and two or three short answers about the application of the concept. Doing so would force students to not just study for a test, but to truly understand the subject, which would certainly be an advantage in their later lives.

 

The next two issues are the low expectations teachers seem to have of their students and the infantile treatments students receive. These two are related because teachers treat students like little children because they expect so little of them, or vice versa. This is a generalization of course; I have had quite a few teachers who pushed me to my limits, who were, unfortunately, in the minority. I strongly believe that students should be treated according to their age, which enables different teaching methods for each age group. This is not a new idea however. Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed the idea that educators should rely on a child’s natural curiosity to teach them instead of trying to force their own ideas upon them (Rousseau 15-16). Doing so would make learning more natural to children. Implementing my and Rousseau’s ideas would ensure that students are treated by their teachers according to their age, which would likely improve their overall performance as well as their opinion of school: What they do will matter, what they say will be taken seriously, what they accomplish will make a difference.

 

The next problem is the projects students need to do. I agree that certain projects, like research papers are necessary, however these are significantly fewer than what I consider to be non-useful projects like group projects and presentations. Projects are supposed to give students an example of what work life consists of and build team working skills; however, they are more commonly perceived as a nuisance by the students, especially if a large portion of their grade depends on a single project, and are thusly not taken seriously. They do not enrich the classes in any useful way, except causing stress for the students. After all, what is more stressful, studying for a test or hectically trying to complete a project due in the near future? In my view, a vast reduction of the number of mandatory projects students must complete would leave time for either more instruction or relevant assignments, which would increase the efficiency of the school.

 

The final problem I see is probably the most annoying in the eyes of students: The so called “busy work”. Busy work is homework or in-class assignments that serve no pedagogic purpose other than being, supposedly, an easy A. Busy work takes time away from more important things, like actual classroom instruction. My suggestion to this would be to simply eliminate it altogether, and to give the teachers more freedom when it comes to deciding how and what to teach. Doing so should result in greater flexibility and overall higher achievement as the useless extra work will be eliminated and replaced by work important to the subject.   

 

I have made these suggestions based on my prior experience at the German school. I do not claim that this school system is inherently superior to the US system, but I do know that I personally enjoyed attending it more than the US high school, and some former classmates, who participated in an exchange program with a school from Oregon, agree with me. While the post secondary education system in the United States is most likely the best in the world, the secondary education system doesn’t prepare the students adequately for their time at college and work life, which is why reforms are necessary to prepare the next generation to succeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Carter, Chris. The Case Against Standardized Tests. 10 September

            2007 <http://www.homestead.com/testcritic/files/Standardized_Tests.html>

 

Comparing NAEP, TIMSS, and PISA in Mathematics and Science. National Center for

Educational Statistics (NCES). 10 September 2007 <http://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/pdf/naep_timss_pisa_comp.pdf>

 

Faecher. Gabelsberger-Gymnasium Mainburg. 10 September 2007

<http://www.gabelsberger-gymnasium.de/01aa01941e0eeaf07/index.html>

 

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile. 1792. Barnes & Noble Publishing Inc, 2005.

 

Top-performer Finland Improves Further in PISA Survey as Gap Between Countries

Widens. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 6 December 2004 <http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,2340,en_2649_201185_34010524_1_1_1_1,00.html>