a grand finale

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Humanities was a class I took assuming I already had the ground works down; I assumed I knew it all and everything would be a breeze. It came as a shock when most of the materials went over my head and I was forced to realize “Melanie, you are not all-knowing, now remove the chip from your shoulder and get to work!” Thank you Humanities for finally waking me up to that realization. The introduction unit itself was enough to confuse me. The separated, brief sections on music, dance, myth, et cetera were not what got me, but rather the materials that followed. What was Dream Time? What was its function? According to the Aborigines, Dream Time gave birth to everything we now know. Our written words may have come from a need to communication long distances, but where did those words come from? They came from a place, time, and state that we cannot understand. I think even now, with all that we have learned, we still cannot answer the questions we have been seeking. We were given a handout with numerous over views, but in the end, those are simply general ideas. Outside of a dictionary definition, can you tell me what it is to love? What does it mean to be enlightened? We may have our words in a spoken and written form now, but we still cannot answer simple questions. Not only do we have this to deal with, but there is also the loss of our emotional, imaginative right brain.

N a t u r e

As a follower of western views of nature, I could not help but side with Herzog’s view in Grizzly Man. To define the western view of nature is quite simple; nature is here for our use. We must use it to our advantage and betterment, or else it is pointless. Granted, if our purpose is for it to make oxygen, obviously we’d just leave- let’s say a tree- alone. You could say nature is above us, since it came before us, but I have to think that the ends justify the means. If at the end of the world, humans have destroyed most of nature, doesn’t that mean that they are superior to nature? Just because something comes first does not make it better. It was simply a stepping stool to better our lives. Now it’s under our control, and inter mingling with it can bring about out down fall. Aside from Grizzly Man, though, there is also The Tempest, which further proves that man is above nature. Prospero has the power within himself to entrap the spirits that represent different elements of nature. It is only through his will that they are ever released from the hold he has over them.

B e a u t y

This category will also contain love and art, as the three go together like peas in a pod. To break this idea down, try to follow the logic we were given at one point in this unit: we LOVE things that are BEAUTIFUL. ART is meant to be pleasing to the eye, and things that please the eye are, in a sense, BEAUTIFUL. If this ART is BEAUTIFUL then we must LOVE it. More goes into it than that, but that was the basic break down of the idea. What makes something beautiful, I wonder? According to Nietzsche, for something to be truly beautiful, it must show both Apollonian and Dionysian qualities. Order and chaos, truth and deception, the good and the bad: all of these contradictions make things beautiful-- they create a work of art. As Nietzsche would say, it would create the perfect tragedy. Of course, Nietzsche could be wrong. Taking Kant’s perspective into account, just because one person sees something as beautiful does not mean we all do. We all see things through different eyes. Our vision varies and the colors hold different meanings. Maybe we can’t see Apollo posing in his perfection, while Dionysus drinks himself into a stupor in the foreground. It’s all too subjective to truly say for sure.

G o o d, B a d, and G o d

Good and bad are defined by personal moral values, as others have also stated. Everyone justifies their actions in one way or another. Looking to Raskolnikov, who killed two people, can we truly say his actions were wrong? The first murder occurred for the good of the people- or so Raskolnikov though. He justified it to himself, that by murdering the pawn broker, that he would be doing good. Regardless of the feelings of others, he accepted the action as good, thus making it good in his mind. Then he kills her sister. The murder was done out of the fear of being seen and, eventually, caught and punished for his crime. Fear can make even a sane man do strange, irrational things. Had he his mind, would Raskolnikov have killed her? Who can say for sure? According to Biblical readings, his actions were wrong, no matter what his motives were. “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the ten commandments, and it’s quite obvious that Raskolnikov did not follow that. Not only is murder against the Bible and God, but Buddhism also frowns upon is, viewing it as “wrong action”. In a life where you should be doing good as religion states, it can be said that Raskolnikov’s actions were wrong. Outside of that view point, however, it is subject to debate.

L i f e

I am in agreement with Megan’s post when she says “the meaning of life cannot be discovered.” I think there is no “the” involved- meaning, there is no specific meaning to life- but for each person there is “a” meaning to life. Many people have searched for a meaning, and each has come back with something different. To Gilgamesh, he learned that to live was also to die. To Dorian the meaning of life became about fulfilling his own desires and staying beautiful. Both of these could be their meanings to life, and it cannot be questioned. Until there is some holy sign saying “This is the meaning of life!” no one can truly argue it one way or the other.