Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself” is just a mish mashed pile of crap, that he threw together throughout his whole entire life. Just kidding, that is not true. Because, I feel like, that he was a very devoted man to his cause. And his cause was to try to make people better, and try to create a unified society. When we were talking about the poem, I was intrigued of how Whitman wove together the whole poem stanza by stanza. Also, how you were interpreting it as well (speaking to McGarry here). The section that I probably found most interesting, besides my own, was probably the first section. I say this because it is the start of the journey through life with Walt Whitman, and beyond the first section he explains everything that is going on in his mind. No matter how simple it is. You said people have called this the most influential American poem ever written, and I can see where people are coming from. Because Whitman speaks to the people through his writings, and he also reaches out to people. Trying to influence them, even beyond his days on this earth. The poem also applies to our society today in some ways. Whitman believes that all people are naturally good. Some people in our society think all people are naturally good. I honestly have no questions about this poem because this is the second time I have been through this, and I am pretty sure I have a good grasp on this beast of a poem.
The connection that I could make between Thoreau and Emerson’s thoughts is that Emerson’s thoughts on nature and being self reliant go hand and hand with the idea of being at Walden pond. They also both believe that nature s what forces us not to depend on others’ ideas but to develop our own. Also like Emerson, Thoreau wants to live a simple life, so he could find a deeper meaning. The main idea of the first part of the excerpt from “Walden”, “Where I Lived And What I Lived For” is if you live in nature and you live simply it will make you your best self. The main idea of the last part of the excerpt from “Walden”, “The Conclusion” is if you follow your own path and not follow anyone but yourself you will live a happy life. The benefits of leaving behind society and going into nature would be that you wouldn’t have to worry about anyone but yourself when you are in the woods and you can find your best self. You would miss all the things going on in the world around you whether that be technological advancements, or even wars. I would not be able to do this because I love my life how it is and I don’t like nature because there are bugs and its dirty and no showers so I’ll pass on that. But ya know, things were different back then.
Thoreau is a very, very thoughtful man when it comes to his ways with transcendentalism. When he states, “that government is best which governs least?”, I really do not fully believe in that statement. Because government takes a full conjoined effort to run a country, and I feel like you need to have a big force of people to do such a thing as government. Thoreau also states, “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. . .”, some kinds of government demand respect in certain aspects. For example, the government that we have the United States today. It demands respect because your earn respect by just following basic laws and that respect will be earned throughout your days in the country just by being a law abiding citizen. Civil disobedience today plays a big part in how our country is developing today. from people having peaceful outside of the white house to impose a bill that is going around in congress. To having protests about the Black Lives Matters movement, and just being civil about it with no violence whatsoever. Its effective because it gets people’s attention, and gets their minds thinking about the problems going on in their own country as well and speak out about it.
The book I selected for the 3rd quarter is a autobiography on the former legendary sports anchor for ESPN, Stuart Scott. I selected this book this book because I always used to love waking up early in the morning, and seeing Stuart Scott report everyday in the world of sports. After reading the first chapter of the book, I still think of Stuart as a superhero in my mind. My initial reaction to this book was what I expected to be honest. I do not have any concerns about creating a trailer for this autobiography. Thank you have a good day.
Transcendentalism is a different concept, and it seems to be a weird one. It’s a little bit hard to understand. Some of Emerson’s writings like “Nature” and “Self Reliance” have deeper meanings behind them, than what just lies on the surface. But, the argument for this transcendentalism stuff is; is man naturally good? Or is man naturally evil? To some people, this argument is very controversial. Because like in transcendentalism one of their principles is basically question everything, and they do question everything. In my opinion, I think man is naturally evil. My reasoning for that statement is that people are only good because of the rules in our society, and people scared of facing the repercussions of breaking the rules. For example, if someone left their keys in their car, and the car was unlocked. Would you take the car? Probably not because you are afraid of breaking the rules that society has put in place. Because if you do take that car, you would face the repercussions. Like jail time or maybe even worse. But deep inside of your body and mind, you want to take that car, and do whatever you want with it. There are many other scenarios I could give you to say that man is naturally evil but I do not have the time for that nonsense. So in my opinion transcendentalism is a different and weird concept to understand. Also that man is naturally evil instead of naturally good, because people are afraid of repercussions and bad things that will happen to them if they do not follow the rules in our society today.
Argument is a part in our society that is surprisingly important, and I kind-of understand why now. The reason it is simply important is that, people just want to argue for no reason but to just interact with other people. For example, two people who do not know each other. They will be sitting there and one of them will state there opinion on something they feel strongly about. Then the other person next to them thinks that there opinion is outrageous, so they have a argument about it. To be honest, I do not know how people can argue as much as they can, and still live a happy normal life. If you just live to get a rise out of people, and one way is to argue, I do not know how you can function in a social environment like our society today. But argument is welcomed into our society like it is nothing. Lets just take a look at our politics in our nation. Our politicians argue constantly about how they think that they are constantly right, and that there policies are the best for the nation. To some people in our great nation, that is just entertaining to them. Also look at how your parents argue over stupid little things. Like how your dad did not take out the trash, and your mom comes home and starts an argument with him just for not taking out the trash. Like that is ridiculous I do not understand it. I am also guilty for starting dumb arguments as well though. Argument is weirdly a useful literary tool in our society today, and that is very very surprising to me. To people that just want to interact, politicians that want to be the top dog, and for your parents arguing over something stupid. Keep arguing, because it seems to be the best way to learn and obtain information in our great world today.
For this debate (this year), my topic is pay to play sports in your high school years. I got the con side of things, but personally I would have choose the other side of the debate. I say that because, well that will just take away my position on the debate. So, I will not help my opponent in any circumstance. To start off, some things I know about this topic is that in some schools it can be beneficial. But, for other schools it is not even discussed because it is “unfair” to kids who do not have the money to play the sport they want to play, whatever. Some results I get with a simple Google search is a link with the title of, “Will pay-to-play ruin school sports?”, this would be research gold for the sole reason that the title is the topic for the argument. Some things I can do logically that can play into my advantage is how everybody deserves a chance no matter what. To show off their skills to the coach of that sport, also to earn a chance to play in the games to represent your school. An ethical issue I can bring up in this debate is the issue of people not having the money to pay to play the sport they want to play. I can play into people’s emotions by maybe relating them to a situation they have been in before, and show them how it is unfair that not all people get the opportunity. Because of their financial situation.
Over time with arguing and making an attempt to make a controlled argument I’ve noticed that it’s harder than expected. The debate topics and the set up debate session was alright but honestly it was not fun, it sucked. Making a debate against a classmate is much more difficult than when it’s with my parents. My parents are so easy to argue against because they never have any evidence that the decision I made deserves the punishment I acquired. I will always argue the same way because I find that if I’m not a stubborn person people won’t pick on you for always thinking your way is the correct way. Including the topic I got which was build a wall pro was the worst, every website I went on had practically the same thing so it really just frustrated me. On the revisit of my earlier blog not much has changed besides the fact that constructing an argument really isn’t easy; especially when it’s a topic that really isn’t interesting. I hate politics I don’t care about politics, but I will say I am in favor of the wall being built. My interests are more towards sports, and for the sake if someone says something that is not true. I will have to call myself out but it’s almost like a habit for me to do such things because sometimes it’s just me trying to get a person fired up, or a time when I want to see if someone can prove me wrong. The ways I argue haven’t changed from the time we started to the time we finished it because when it comes to school I don’t worry about it much outside of the building. Developing a persuasive speech was an awful experience. Why? Because I found no interest in my topic to argue about this and like I said every website I visited had pretty much the same stuff. So trying to get out 3-6 minutes worth of talking was not easy. I have a feeling that it may have been a harder topic to research because of this wall not be a concrete answer. I think if the wall was built there would be more sources that told you how the wall has effected something and/or studies with more concrete facts of how the wall will be constructed. So in all I did not really like this unit it was not fun, it was more stressful than anything for me. When it came to classmates too some of them really rocked it, it was awesome to hear a good debate on a topic where people had solid information. Even better when someone could tear down their opponent in their rebuttal. And obviously there are those people who just don’t know what’s going on. If I could never do that again I wouldn’t mind, in fact I’d be happy about it. Debates were horrible it’s only fun when I argue with my parents I enjoy a good laugh with that because they say the same thing every time.
My first reaction to this poem was that I was a little confused, but that’s usually how it is until we get farther into the poem then I can put the pieces together. And I really liked how it was set up because it adds a sense of emotion and it deepens the mood. This poem is about, I believe, a person lost in their own life trying to make a place in this world. I say this because in the poem it says, “already gone, but still remain, all alone against the world outside”. This line works with my synopsis due to how you can break this down. So in this line when it says, “already gone, but still remain” this mean like the person is “invisible” to those around him, and doesn’t have any friends. Then the last part of that line “all alone against the world outside” is kind of the context clue for the first part because when I mentioned this person is “invisible” so then you create the picture that this person doesn’t know his path in life and just fighting to have a purpose. The allusion “dynamo of night” would have to be the one that helps me understand the poem because as the definition of conformity presents this guy is just going through the motions of life by complying with the standards or rules. But it also comes back to that I do not really understand the allusions itself so I just read the poem and don’t take into account that these are allusions. So otherwise, that’s how I perceived this poem.