Some ideas on this novel

Well, I did not think that I was going to like this book to be honest. But as I started reading it, I found it to be one of the best books I have ever read. It was so interesting and I found that the format made the book really easy to understand. It was striaght forward and grabbed my attention right away. This is by far the only postmodernim book that I have liked so far. Anyways, here are some of my ideas on what I am considering writing my essay on.
One aspect of the book that really got my attention was the relationship between the Artie and his father. I thought that he did not appreciate his father at all and only talked to him when he needed something. He was so inconsiderable to his father's feelings and does not realize how much he is hurting him. Also, something else that really grabbed my attention was how the older generations appreciate things so much more than today's generation. Valadek knew the true value of everything since he had faced so many difficulties in his lifetime. Atrie fails to realize this and makes fun of his father for acting this way. I find that extremely wrong and this made me realize how I takes things for granted. My parents did not have cell phones when they attended high school and kids today take this for granted. We fail to realize how much our parents have gone through and I think we should appreciate everything we are given. Valadek knew the true value of food and did not want to waste anything. Artie on the other hand was ashamed of his father for thinking this way. So this really caught my attention.
I know that my ideas have nothing to do with postmderanism, but I just really got interested in the relationship between Artie and his father. But this is just an idea, I might end up writing my essay on something else. I am kind of unclear on what to write about. Well, these were just some of my thoughts.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

What would we do without the internet?

In my point of view, I think that the internet has made things so much easier for people. A person can practically find anything he wants by going on Google. It is one of the best resources to find the answers to all of your questions. We live in a fast pace society and the internet provides us with all of the useful information that a person needs to know. We have become use to this speed and do not realize the impact it has had on our everyday lives. Technology has become a part of life and rarely does anyone not use the internet at least once a day. Nicholas Carr talks about making information more easily available and mention that “research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes.” This really proves how much society has improved over the past couple decades. There is actually no end to this advancement. It just keeps getting better and better every day as science keeps coming up with better ways to make our lives easier. It is actually hard to believe how something that took a long to achieve can now be done is a manner of minutes. But in a way, we have become use to this quick pace. Everything revolving around us is moving so fast that even if out internet takes a couple minutes to load, we get frustrated. We do not even have the patience to value internet. For example, my parents came from a time when TV's were looked at as a procession that the wealthy had. But now, TV's are practically in every room of the house since we have become so accustomed to them. But back then they valued them so much and now TV's in a way have become outdated. A person can do practically anything online. So I do not think that the internet has lead to the stupidity of society. In my opinion, it has helped us become more intelligent. We learn more things by researching online and resources help us in out every day lives.

So internet is very useful and is necessary thing to have is today's society.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Some thoughts on the Video

So I was not very surprised after watching the video “did you know” on friday. Our world today is moving so fast that it is becoming hard to keep with all the new scientific inventions. We are in moving in a fast pace society and technology is improving every second. There is always something new that science has to offer or some new discovery that has been made.

One thing that really caught my attention in the video was how “a week's worth of New York Time contains more information than what a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century”. There is so much going on in the world today and so much information to absorb. So this just goes on to show how much society has changed just in a short amount of time. Well...maybe not that short but still..it has improved significantly. But that brings up the question...has it changed in a good way? In a medical person's perspective, it has helped save millions of lives. But media (technology) wise...it has become complicated in my opinion. It just seems like technology is taking over everything and that one person cannot operate with having some type of device in their hand. So where is technology heading?? How much more is it going to improve? The answers to these question are yet to remain unanswered for now..well cause I don't really now the answer. But I for sure that I will never stop improving.

So this relates to Dr. Alan Kirby's article because he thinks that post modernism is “dead and buried” and “that postmodernism is dead by looking outside the academy at current cultural production”. How can he say that it is “dead”? There is so much going on in the world that it is hard to comprehend everything that goes on. I do not think that post modernism is ever going to end.

Things will keep on improving and views will keep on changing.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Cat's Cradle and Postmodernism

Well, there is not much information given in the first seven chapters that can inform the reader of how this book illustrates postmodernism. But i did manage to find a couple examples that I thought represented postmodernism.

First, The Books of Bokonon declares that "all of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies" (14). So Bokononism is based entirely on false information but one has wonder how a religion that calls itself a lie can have such inspiration and devotion on others. But at the same time Vonnegut emphasizes that the main purpose of a religion is to bring meaning and purpose to life. So it being a lie has no part in religion. It is mainly the illusion that provides meaning and purpose to life. They believe that everything that happens in life is "meant to happen" and is God's will. So this post modernistic view helps explain how religion plays no part in one's life and is only there to provide an illusion of faith.

Also, Felix Hoenikker is portrayed as being so ignorant. This is shown through him asking "what is sin" (21). So in a way, he felt that he did not play any part in helping create the atomic bomb and portrays selfish and is just doing his job. He is just serving the society and in a way is forced to do that. Also, he is ignorant of his moral responsibilities and his responsibilities as being a father. He only viewed his wife as only a caretaker and even tips her after she makes breakfast. Later, this is handed down to his daughter who takes care of the whole family. He does not have a good relationship with his kids and takes no interest in them. This portrays postmodernism because just like Brave New World, they form no kind of relationship or attachment. They are individuals and do not belong to anyone else.

Overall, I think that once we are more into the book, this concept with become more clear because at this time, I am not understanding how this book portrays postmodernism very well.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

My ideas on Brave New World essay

So...it is very difficult for me to chose one theme idea in BNW because there are so many ideas that one can explore. After reading "Coming up with your topic and Developing your thesis" I managed to compress my ideas and focus on some of the main themes. It helped me understand more about reading actively and how important reading differently for different purposes comes into hand. I also got a better understanding about writing a good thesis and what are some things I should avoid in a thesis. Most of the things in the article about thesis I already knew but it helped me get a better understanding a little bit more.


In my essay, I would like to discuss the use of technology to control society and maybe compare it to 1984. But I also feel that it might end up sounding a lot like our summer assignment. Also, I would like to explore happiness that is presented in BNW and the use of soma to avoid unhappiness. Another idea that came into my mind was comparing BRN to today's society. But in a way I feel that it is not right to judge their society and compare it to ours. SO as you can see...I am all over the place.


For now my thesis is:
              In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, it becomes clear that just like 1984 the society is controlled   through the use of technology, unhappiness is avoided and morals are reversed in compare to today's society.


In my essay, I want to use the article by John Sampson regarding limiting government control and some other that I found in the Washington Post. It is difficult to find outside information to use in an essay but I will try to research more on the topics. Also, I would like to use quotes relating to happiness, and morals. I think that will be a good way of relating BNW to today's society.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

The power of myths

Well, I think that myths play a large role in each society. There are always some things that have been told from one generation to another. Those beliefs do not need any proof because each story that is being told, is proof itself and the proof of all others. Similarly, Lyotard mentions that “the teller of the myth does not have to argue or prove” any story he is telling (24). A myth legitimizes and makes itself believable just in the telling. But, a myth might have been changed so many times that there is no way of knowing its original form. Each person has his own way of rephrasing that myth. Lyotard also mentions that “the narrator has authority to chant the chant because he has heard it chanted itself” (25).
I think that myths do change over time because they are interpreted so many ways and keep changing from one generation to another. They are said in so many ways and define what is right or wrong in a society.

In a way, different cultures create myths to have some control over their society. They become a tradition in some ways and most people will not argue against a myth. So most people cannot disagree with a myth or prove it wrong somehow. So they go on accepting them and tell them to the younger generations. This way, they are known as facts and have to be accepted. They are sort of forced upon the people in the society and they have to believe in them. They have no right in saying that they are false because again there is no proof. This is the downside to myths because they are believed to be true no matter what. Myths enter the mind of a reader and become reality.

Myths serve specific purposes in their culture and provide a structured system of ethics for people so they can function as a society.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

A world of artifically created society

While I was reading Brave New World, it reminded me a lot of 1984. This is because both books depict a world which is dominated by the government with the use of technology. Just like a company produces consumer goods, in Brave New World the Hatchery produces human beings. The assembly line is now used for the manufacturing of human beings. The Utopian society that is presented has only one purpose, to produce and control human beings. They produce them according to their status and give them a certain amount of intelligence. With this people accept their given roles in society without question. Conditioning makes them incapable of performing any other function than the one they are assigned.

Also, they try to control the behavior of the children they are producing. They give the babies electric shocks so they will have a hatred for books and flowers. The director mentions that "[the babies] will be safe from books and botany all thier lives" (22). With this much control, they pratically want the human beings to do exactly what they have been designed to perform. They can condition the babies to do what ever they are needed for.

With the use of technology to produce babies, there is no more sexual reproduction. Words like mother and father are thought to be considered pornographic. So every human beings is made to complete a certain task in the world. That person has no freedom and is being controlled in whatever he does. That person is a property of the government and can only abide by its rules. This is also a form of manipulation where one has so much power over another that he cannot realize what is true and what is not.

Brave New World, presents another method of manipulation to control human beings.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Should we be studying religion at school?


Recently, I read an article that really caught my attention. It made me question how much religion should be discussed in our history class? We go over the key points and discuss the major religious figures, but should we be going deeper into the Christian faith? How much time should we be spending studying religion in history? Is there room to have more discussion about Christianity and still cover the major historical events that have happened? If so, how many religions should we put more emphasis on?

In my opinion, there is no need to go into more detail about religion at school. If one wants to study more about religion, he/she can go to Church more often or even attend Private or Catholic schools. History is mainly about studying politics and discussing the major role models that have made an enormous impact on the world. Emphasizing more on religion will lead to de-emphasizing major historical figures. According to the two reviewers presented in the article, they want to remove references to some of the historical figures such as Cesar Chavez. These people think that religion plays a vital role in history and should be focused on more. History is made up of role models like Cesar Chavez and eliminating them would be getting rid of major parts of history.  

There is so much diversity in America that you cannot put more emphasis on just one religion. Only a certain amount to students in a class are Christian so not everyone is going to agree with what the Bible says. People with different faith than Christianity teach their children certain principles about their religion and those beliefs might cause conflict with what they might be learning at school. Discussing more Christianity in history classes would just cause more conflict between those who are Christian and those who are not. There are so many religions in the world and it would be impossible to cover each religion in a class.

Religion is something very personal and should not be taught at school.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS
Copyright 2009 RaVnEeT's bLoG
Free WordPress Themes designed by EZwpthemes
Converted by Theme Craft
Powered by Blogger Templates