Lessons in Doubt

In the play, Doubt: a Parable, there are many themes raised, but one prodominant question is whether or not Father Flynn touched any of the boys, specifically Donald Muller.  He denies this, and it's never officially stated in the play, but our small group in class found a variety of examples that hint at the opposite.

It starts when Father Flynn says that the reason Donald had alcohol on his breath wasn't because he gave it to the boy, but because he caught the boy drinking the alter wine.  He didn't want to report the incident because he thought that would look bad on the perish, and the cardinals (or whoever is the next highest level, I'm not sure) would look down upon Sister Aloysius because she is the principle of the school.

Later on, when Father Flynn is having a conversation with Sister James in the courtyard, he attempts to justify his actions, claiming that there were "circumstances beyond your knowledge."  He also seems to have interest in only one boy (Donald), as seen when he asks Sister James how he is doing in her class.  When she turns the conversation to Sister Aloysius showing concern because she cares about the child, Father Flynn replies with frustration, "Its me that cares about that boy."  Even at the end of the scene, there is a large black crow (sometimes seen as a symbol of one's conscious), which he yells at to be quiet.  This could be that either his conscious is telling him to go to Sister Aloysius and explain what happened with the alter wine (thereby clearing his name if he is, in fact, innocent), or it could be telling him that he knows what he did was wrong, and he should simply come clean with it and take the consequences.

Later, Sister Aloysius calls Father Flynn into her office.  When she can't coerce a confession out of him (using evidence such as the alcohol on Donald's breath and the fact that Father Flynn had been through five perishes in the last three years), he turns offensive and starts to verbally attack her, rather than turning defensive, as someone who is hurt from the accusations would have.  When she says that she is going to call someone higher up, he stops her.

Finally, when Sister Aloysius calls Father Flynn into her office for the last time, she lies by telling him that she called his previous perish.  She tells him if he doesn't want to lose everything, he will ask for a transfer, which he later does.  If he hadn't been guilty of something, he would have continued to fight her, but I doubt (no pun intended) that he would have transfered for the sole reason that he was tired of putting up with her accusations, as some others (not necessarily in the class) seem to believe.

Ivan's Inquisitor

As a class, we decided that as humans, we desire bread, someone to worship, a community of worship without discord, and something to live for.  But what about the freedom of choice?  Is it something we desire, or simply something that, especially as Americans, we've always known and therefore take it for granted?

Ivan's Grand Inquisitor comments that the freedom of choice conflicts with happiness.  He tells the prisoner that by taking away the people's freedom of choice, he thinks he is making them happier because he believes that people don't actually want their freedom, but they want to believe they still have it.  So he gives them the impression of freedom without the responsibility of it, because he also believes that nothing has made man more upset than freedom.

In contrast, the Inquisitor challenges his prisoner of not caring for the people by giving them their freedom.  While Jesus didn't give people what they desired to be happy, he instead gave them what He thought they needed.  He resisted the three temptations, and the Inquisitor shows his contempt of these actions clearly to the prisoner.

But why take everything out on the prisoner?  Is it simply because the Inquisitor witnessed the miracle of him raising the child from the dead?  If that is the only proof, does that therefore mean that this prisoner must be Jesus, come back for Judgement Day?

Ivan has told his opinion throughout his stories in 'The Rebellion' that people are cruel to each other and cannot love their neighbors.  And yet, people still need to follow others; they need a leader.  Like when we choose what we are going to wear.  Day by day is our own choice (unless there is something specific going on such as the 'color day' my high school used to do in which each class would wear a different school color), but our overall wardrobe carries trends set by others, from people in our high school to people in the fashion industry.

Point is, almost every person I know feels like they are an individual.  They do what they want, when they want, and don't necessarily care who knows about it or what anyone thinks about it.  But with everyone telling our generation to 'find ourselves' and 'be unique', if everyone thinks they are unique, does that mean we're all conforming in our uniqueness?  Because eventually, people will always choose what makes them comfortable (which is usually following the crowd and not being someone who stands out), rather than decide what would be best for themselves.

Morning Devotional

I meant to post this a long time ago, like many of the notes that I take in class, but it's never too late.  Anyway, this is from when we read "The Enchiridion" by Epictetus.  I found eight things that I found really meaningful to me that I could work into my mornings (or nights, since mornings don't usually go too well for me).

#8:  "Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well."

In other words, one shouldn't dwell on dreams, but instead stick with reality, otherwise we might lose ourselves.

#9:  "Sickness is a hindrance to the body, but not to your ability to choose, unless that is your choice."

I took this to mean you have the choice to look past misfortunes as minor obstacles, or you can look at misfortunes and see them as an unclimbable wall.

#10:  "With every accident, ask yourself what abilities you have for making a proper use of it....  If you hear unpleasant language, you will find patience."

With this and the other examples given, it seems to mean that by asking yourself what abilities (or virtues) you have, you will help yourself enhance your virtues, and lead to a more fulfilling life.

#15:  "Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party."

When I first read this, I laughed.  I thought it was completely ridiculous, but once I finished with this specific entry, I realized that it made sense.  It basically talked of the old saying 'good things come to those who wait'.  But this also took it a step further, mentioning that if one could hold out a little more than normal, "you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods."  In other words, the reward will be much better and more satisfying.

#19:  "You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer.... for, if the essence of good consists in things in our control, there will be no room for envy or emulation."

What I thought Epictetus was trying to say was that only things in our control can be given the power to cause happiness.  In other words, we can't control what others receive, and we therefore shouldn't envy what others have.  In it's other examples, he also seems to be saying that power doesn't equal happiness, and we should not wish to have power, but accept it if it comes our way.

#20:  "Remember, that not he who gives ill language or a blow insults, but the principle which represents these things as insulting.  When, therefore, anyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which provokes you."

In other words, don't give an enemy the power to lower your self- esteem, for you are the only one with the power to allow it to be lowered.  Don't let others' comments get to you, and instead brush them off, realizing the person is likely jealous of what you have.

#42:  "When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty....  Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived."

I really liked this passage (which also goes with #20).  In my opinion, it basically says that if someone insults you, don't take him seriously because you are who you are, and you should stay that way.  The reason he insulted you is because he doesn't know you, and that isn't your fault in any way, shape, or form, so don't let it get you down.

#43:  "Everything has two handles, the one by which it may be carried, the other by which it cannot."

From this sentence, he seems to be saying that we have two options, and only one is right.  But from the example he supports this with, it gave me a different interpretation.  He talks of a brother who 'acts unjustly', and that, even though he was wrong, we should help him anyway because "he was brought up with you."  I'm confused though if he's saying we should help him because he is family, related by blood, or if we should take the high road which will lead to a better life.

LLTM: "Thoughts in Solitude"

I decided to read this prayer by Thomas Merton, which I thought seemed to fit fairly well with The Sparrow and Sandoz's questioning his faith.

The prayer is about asking God for guidance, and although one is not sure where we are in life or what we are doing, what we desire most is to do what we think is right by Him, and because of that, He is pleased by us and will lead us in the right direction, whether we understand the road we're on or not.

The last line before the prayer, the authors of the book ask us to consider an interesting question: Does his trust in God seem to you a daring venture, a sign of weakness, or something else?  And it was that question that got me thinking about Sandoz again.

I think that in both cases, the doubt expressed is the exact opposite of a sign of weakness.  I feel that only through doubt can our faith be strengthened, and by asking God for guidance is the best way to find your faith again.  One line in the prayer mentions that although we may not understand what direction we are headed in, we have to believe that He will guide us.  I found myself really drawn to this because I had a point just like it in my faith journey.

My sophmore year in high school, I was extremely religious.  But my junior, and especially my senior year, I fell away from it.  During the first couple weeks of summer after my senior year, an old friend convinced me to go on a church mission trip with her.  At first I didn't want to, but something kept compelling me to say yes.  I ended up going, and on one of the last nights, I had a huge epiphany; there's no other way to describe it.  I was actually crying for about three hours, although I wasn't exactly sure why.  All I knew is that I had to turn my life around and get away from the things I was doing.  Something kept telling me, 'if you do that, you'll not only be happier with the people you love, but with yourself.'  When I first got back, I went back to doing what I did-- I wasn't around the mission trip people anymore, so it was hard to break away from my habits.  But then I talked to my friend, and remembered what my gut, the voice, maybe even an angel, had said to me, and I started cutting back, then stopped altogether.  It wasn't until I really read this prayer that I realized how much happier I really am with the people I love, and with my journey through faith.

Point is, I don't think this prayer is a daring venture, and definitely not a sign of weakness.  I think that it's a prayer for help, guidance, and something to turn to when you don't think you have anywhere else to go.

Sparrow, part 1

So far, this book has been decently intriguing.  Although the jumping back and forth between before the mission and after has been slightly confusing, what I'm finding most frustrating is the pace of the book.  I enjoy a book that sets up the plot, which might take a little bit of time, but then you get to the point where you can't put it down.  So far, I'm struggling to get there with this book, if it even has a point like that.  But it's proven itself interesting so far, so even though it's taking a while to get through, it's still worth while.

We also are managing to have thought-provoking discussions in class, trying to figure out what the disaster was that happened.  One of these discussions centered around the question about the limits of faith and despair.  In my opinion, when Sandoz is referring to this boundary, he is reflecting on why God let him survive (the limit of faith) and why He let all the others perish (boundary of despair).  It seems that Sandoz is blaming himself because he views the mission as his idea.  Even though Jimmy was the one who detected the signal, and George helped him with all the calculations that told them it was possible, Sandoz really pushed Anne to come along as well.  So he likely feels responsible for all their deaths, including when he tells Anne that the Society would never allow a mission to occur if they thought it would be a failure.  So it seems to me that Sandoz feels that the limitation of faith was also the limit of the Earth's atmosphere-- once outside of that, and one enters the territory of despair.

I also thought it was interesting when Giulani starts to chastise Sandoz for his self-pity and doubting.  I understand how Sandoz could be doubting his beliefs- it seems logical to me that everyone, at some point, experiences religious doubt.  But I don't think Giulani truly understands why Sandoz is having doubts about God, so I think that Giulani should have gone about critisizing Sandoz a different way, rather than asking him if he thought he was the only one to ever experience doubt.  But it didn't really surprise me that it was a priest who was having these doubts because, like I said earlier, everyone experiences something along those lines, everyone has a low point in their faith at least once.  And it's only through those low points that I feel we can truly strengthen our beliefs.

LLTM: "The Giver"

In eighth grade, we read The Giver by Lois Lowry as a class.  I enjoyed it, so I decided to read the excerpt the book had pulled out, chapters seven and eight.  It begins in the auditorium where the main character, Jonas, receives his adulthood job at the age of twelve.  He will have this job for the rest of his life, or until his successor comes, but the assignment he is given is rare, yet the highest regarded in the community.

I feel that in some ways, life would be a lot easier if the heads of community were to watch us, then decide what areas of society would best suit us.  It would take away the pressure of needing to go to a well-rounded, recognizable college, one that we feel and hope will get us ready for the real world.  It would take away the stress to get good grades, especially in high school, and would allow for a more enjoyable childhood, even if it only lasted twelve years as in the book.

And yet, there are many other ways in which I'm glad I don't live in a society that makes nearly all of my choices for me.  I'm glad I don't live in a community where I'm taught responses or behavioral instincts from when I'm born.  I'm glad I can choose for myself, even though there are many things that I wish I didn't have to choose between and hope that someone could simply make the choice for me.  And then there are the times when I'm scared of making the wrong choice, but I still enjoy that I can leave from all those decisions because I was the only one that could have made them.  Granted, many people have influenced what choices I make, even now as a freshman in college and 250+ miles away from home, but my parents (as much as I'd hate to admit it (so you two can skip the rest of this paragraph and start the next one)) have influenced me greatly, and I appreciate it.

I guess what it boils down to is that while there are some things I wish I didn't have to decide for myself, some choices I wish I didn't have to make, I'm glad that I live in a society that allows me to not only make those choices (and sometimes mistakes), but therefore gives me the ability to learn from them, gain experience, and also gives me the ability to give advise to others through those experiences.

Human? What's that?

What makes us human?  Is it our ability to reason?  Our ability to make decisions?  Our written and remembered history?  Or is it something on a much deeper level, such as having honor or integrity?  What separates our species from all the others?  In summary, our ability to self-reflect, capacity to reason, purposeful behavior, and our capacity to learn (through various forms of communication, multiple perspectives, and our ability to read and write) is what separates us.

So how can we live a fulfilling, happy life?  As Aristotle discusses, we first must learn what the purpose of a human being is, and only by doing that purpose can we achieve the "supreme good of happiness."  He says that we must be more than alive, for plants are also alive.  We must have more that just senses and perceptions, for animals have them as well.  So as humans, we have reasoning and decision- making.  But only by using this ability, and using it well, can we live a fulfilling life.

So if we reason well and make good decisions, we'll be happy and have a fulfilling life?  Not exactly.  The root to happiness, Aristotle claims, is to always act appropriately.  But what is appropriate, and how to we learn to distinguish when to act and when to feel?  Our ability to learn through self-reflect, reasoning, intentional behavior, and imagine alternative futures all gives us the capacity to make decisions about out future and act on it.  It allows us, through phronesis (which tells one how to behave through practical wisdom), to differentiate between was is too much, too little, and just right.  Using an example of friendliness, phronesis tells us that completely ignoring someone may be inappropriate in some situations, but also giving someone a huge hug and a kiss on both cheeks may be inappropriate in another situation.  It tells us that small talk may be what is called for, but little else.  Phronesis explains how to live, but we need sophia (theoretical wisdom) to live well.

So living is practical, but living well is only a theory?  Not necessarily.  For example, to become patient, a person watches what a patient person does, and tries to mimic their behavior in the hopes that they will become patient.  It simply means that for someone who enjoys a certain virtue (patience, compassion, friendliness, etc.), it is easy for them to live a fulfilling life, whereas someone who has to become virtuous (learn patience, compassion, friendliness, etc.), they also must work hard at living a fulfilling life.

It's not impossible to live a fulfilling life; it's not simply a theory.  But the road to a happy life isn't straight by any means, nor is it easy to travel.  There will be many obstacles trying to block the way, but it's still possible to reach that ultimate goal, that 'supreme good'.

LLTM: "The Choice"

I read the poem, "The Choice" by William Yeats in the Leading Lives That Matter book.  The poem, although short, has much to say about the decisions we make as humans.  We can either choose to work, meaning make a career for ourselves, be known in that career, and have an alright or decent life that way, or we can choose the 'perfection of the life', meaning to live socially, give ourselves the ability to survive through others and most likely off of others.

But in this poem, Yeats says if we should choose wrong, "the day's vanity, the night's remorse", which, in my opinion, seems to say that we will have pleasure to the public eye, but nothing more.  For example, during the day, one will live lavishly, expensively, and arrive in a limo.  But as night falls, the lavish decorations begin to deteriorate, the expensive catering turns into take out, and the limo turns into a taxi.

A line that confused me was when he said, "And if it take the second must refuse/ A heavenly mansion, raging in the dark."  I'm still not certain what the first part means, but after reading it a few times, I realized that I liked the second line because it seemed to suggest that the truth came out at night.  It seemed to say that while people will see your house during the day, they will pay no attention to it as darkness comes because there will be no reason to.  Like many women wear make-up during the day and people notice, once the party is over and they have returned home, there isn't a point to keep it on anymore, so most of those women take it off, revealing their true selves.

But then the book asked an interesting question- Is the quest for perfection (or even for highly distinguished accomplishment) essential for a life of significance?  And it seems to me that the answer is no.  I feel that if I'm doing something I love, with people that I care about and who care about me, and I am able to survive on a lifestyle that isn't poverty, but isn't overly prosperous or lavish, I feel that then I'm living a life of significance.  If I feel that I'm either making, or can make, a difference in someone's life, just by doing what I do on a daily basis, then I feel I'm living a life of significance, and therefore, I have achieved the 'supreme good'.

LLTM: "The Road Not Taken"

As a girl, I used to quote Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken", although I wasn't really sure of it's meaning.  At the age of twelve, I figured I had everything about this poem understood- the narrator took a path that was less worn, and because of that, he is who he is.

Now, having read it as a freshman in college, I realize that he didn't just take the other road.  He contemplated if that was really what he wanted to do, or if he wanted to take the first path.  A parallel that could easily be drawn between this poem and life is that he was considering whether or not to follow the crowd and conform, or to be his own person by taking his own path.  And I think it's inspirational that he took the other path, because it helps people realize that sometimes, it's okay to go away from the crowd and decide to do what you as an individual want to do, and not what the masses think you should do.

One of the questions the book asks is if the narrator sighs in regret, resignation, or fatigue?  I think it isn't really any of those, but instead a sigh of remembrance.  He's looking back at his past, and thinking about all his choices that have effected him in one way or another.  And even though I'm only a freshman in college, I have many of those sighs.  Like the song from Wicked says, "Who can say if I've been changed for the better, but because I knew you, I have been changed for good."  Turn it into the context of this poem, and he's saying who knows if he's better off because he took the path less traveled, but he knows he's become who he is because of it.

Gorgias, part 2

With our closing discussion of living a lie or knowing the truth, I don't have a single answer.  Part of me says, in regards to the dead husband that cheated and you find a letter, no I wouldn't want to know.  But I wouldn't want to know not only because I would want to remember him as how I saw him, as the loving husband that would likely have done anything for me, but because I can't change the past.  And I know I can't change the past in any situation, but if the husband was still alive, I could at least talk to him, ask what he was thinking in a sense of, was he drunk?  did she convince him that I (as his wife) wouldn't find out?  what lead up to him cheating on me?  I would want to know the answer to those questions, and even though I'd be completely pissed at him and very likely want a divorce, it would also depend on his answers what I would finally do.

Comparatively, if I was believing something to be true that wasn't, I would want to be corrected (using the Santa Claus example from class, or Haley's book reference).  And while some things are harder to accept as being false than others (for example, we'd much rather find out that Santa isn't real than find out our husband had an affair), there will always be obstacles in life that are harder to get over than others.  But what we have to realize is that eventually, we will get over them, and move on with our lives.  Learning the truth can be devastating, and we've all heard that 'truth hurts', but if I'm being mislead by something, for the most part, I'd like to know what is really going on and discover the truth.

Gorgias, part 1

Initially, I found the conversation between Socrates and Polus fairly frustrating.  Polus has this wonderful answer, but it's an answer that dances circles around the question.  And I found it interesting how that isn't a problem that happened over 2000 years ago, how it still happens (probably more commonly) today.  Part of me was glad when Gorgias decided to answer the questions because I thought, finally, a straight answer.  It was silly of me to think that, of course, because we were reading Plato, and if he had allowed Gorgias to answer plain and simply, we probably wouldn't still be talking about him.  So I quickly crushed my hopes, and continued reading.

So then Socrates was allowed to talk directly to Gorgias.  His main question was basically, which aspect of life does rhetoric have to do with?  Gorgias replied simply with 'speech', and Socrates starts debating about how all areas of expertise involve speech (specifically medicine and physical education), so Socrates adds on to his original question what other areas of life are involved with rhetoric.  Gorgias replied with the most important aspect of human life, which is politics.  But Socrates then complains that there are other things that would argue they have the most important aspect of life (the doctor with health, trainer with beauty, and businessman with wealth).  So Gorgias continues to modify his answer by adding that he has the ability to persuade with the spoken word.  Socrates then talks about two different types of persuasion, one that confers conviction without understanding, and the other that confers knowledge.  A little bit later, Socrates almost tricks Gorgias into saying that he isn't necessarily concerned with what is right or wrong, only in persuading his audience.  This is evident when Socrates makes the argument that a rhetorician must behave morally, and can therefore never do wrong, but Gorgias said he didn't care about right and wrong, which seems to contradict himself.

I thought it was interesting how, when we were still in our small groups, the four of us thought we really understood where Socrates was going with his arguments (although the transitions were a little unclear), and we understood that Gorgias simply seemed slightly less than willing to answer all of Socrates debateful questions.  But it was weird how, as soon as we tried to debate 'Gorgias' as a group, it seemed like nothing fit, and that none of the arguments matched up.  For me (and my other group members, I'm assuming), that was frustrating.  But I did like the idea and the theory of how it should have worked.  We should try to do it again (not necessarily with this text) because now that we somewhat have an idea of what we're supposed to be doing, I think it will run a little more smoothly.  Also, if we split up the groups because none of the Polus/Socrates response to Polus were able to speak, and I think the discussion/debate would have been more effective in the smaller group setting.

LLTM: "To Be of Use"

In the book Leading Lives That Matter, I read the text "To Be of Use" by Margaret Piercy (page 199).  In it, she describes how people work, but most of it goes unnoticed.  And yet, people continue to work and completely submerge themselves in their job with hardly any recognition.  So this poem is how she appreciates those people that put their entire heart and soul into their jobs, again and again, even though they know it won't really get them anywhere.

I found this poem to be enticing on a couple of different levels.  First, I thought about the people themselves, and who i know that could be labeled as a 'workaholic', and many names came to mind.  I thought about why they completely submerge themselves in their job if they don't get recognition for it, if they don't get enjoyment out of it.  And, while I'm still struggling to have the answer make complete sense, I might have found a loose answer.  I think it's because those people feel that if they work just a little harder, if they put in just a couple more hours, maybe the problem won't come back.  Maybe the other coworker will work hard tomorrow so you can stop picking up their slack.  And so, those people "do what has to be done," as Piercy puts it.

On a deeper level, I started to think what Piercy was referring to was not the workload and dedication of those people, but instead that those people feel that while it literally is their job to do the work, they also feel that if they don't get it done, no one else will.  They feel that they are the only ones in a position to "move in a common rhythm" with the things that need to be done.  And although some of the deeds aren't fun, and are hard, time-consuming, and physically draining, they must do the "work of the world" which Piercy considers is as common as mud.  I think what she was trying to get at was that although it's not the most fun job, it needs to be done.  Just like the fields have to be harvested every fall, some deeds are dirty and it might take you a couple times to get it right because the "mud" might crumble in your hands the first few times you try, but eventually you will get the hang of it, and things will start to run smoothly again.

But what I thought was the most enticing was her last two lines in the poem/the last sentence.  "The pitcher cries for water to carry/ and a person for work that is real."  I don't know why I liked that so much, but I did.  It made me think about how a pitcher's main purpose is to carry water (even though we now use it for many other beverages).  But the point is that it's made to be functional, to be used.  And while what many people think what they want is a person who is willing to be functional, to be used, what they really need is to come across someone who is willing to be real, someone who is willing to put in the hard physical labor, and harvest the fields every fall, someone who is willing to "do what has to be done, again and again."

Exist or Live?

How much can a person get out of life?  Is there a limit?  And if so, should we focus on some things and not on others?  What would you want out of life?  After breaking up into small groups of four, we thought about some of this.  But instead of thinking about things like a successful job or making a lot of money, we thought about what we were doing right now and why.  Two of the people in our group played sports- one soccer, the other football.  Why?  Because they enjoyed it; it made them happy.  It connected them with friends and forces you to challenge yourself every time.  So what would we want out of life?  Happiness, friends that care about you, and challenges that test our ability (and the feeling of triumph when we succeed).

How can college help you achieve this ultimate end?  College provides the experiences to help us realize what we want.  It helps us learn more about ourselves, who we are, and what makes us happy.  We go to college because statistics tell us that we're more likely to be successful if we have a degree, but there are jobs that don't require one.  However, if you go to college and decide you don't like that job, you still have experience in other areas, so you could try to start another, completely different career without having to start completely over.  So why Drake?  If you take Drake's mission statement, and take all the italicized parts (on the sheet of paper- 'exceptional learning environment', 'meaningful personal lives', 'professional accomplishments', and 'responsible global citizenship'), we felt that those were most people's loose definition of success itself.  If all the things line up, one would likely go above and beyond, trying to take full advantage.  And that makes a lot of sense to me and what I would like out of my college career, but in order to do this, I have to be comfortable in my environment through learning and being able to ask questions.

Effective Discussions?

Every once in a while in class, we would hit a point in which we would turn the conversation from a discussion or conversation into a debate.  While the words "You're wrong" or "You're stupid, stop talking" were never said, they were almost implied.  So how can we maintain a healthy and continuous discussion?

First, instead of all of us saying what we believe and trying to explain those beliefs, we should inquire as to why our classmates believe what they do.  We should ask them questions to try and gain as much insight as possible before switching the topic over to our personal beliefs, and basically debate as to why we personally don't believe what the other person does.  But right now, we're not doing that and instead we have a lot of unexplained ideas floating around the room with no direction.

Second, everyone has to maintain an open mind about other ideas and realize that not everyone will agree with you and they might in fact disagree with your beliefs.  Everyone has to realize that at some point, their beliefs will be challenged by others, whether religious, political, environmental, or whatever.  Someone will likely disagree with you, and you have to respect that.  Keeping an open mind might even help you realize that you only believed something because your parents did, and you really in fact believe something else.

And finally, even if someone finds their beliefs changing, everyone else has to respect that.  If there is a hostile environment, a person is far less likely to speak up and explain why they have changed, whereas if there is a respectful environment, they would step out of their comfort zone.  But either way, everyone should be given a chance to speak.  If they don't take it, that's ok, but they should at least have the chance offered to them.

Why College?

What are the different reasons people go to college?  What are the different things people could most want to get from this experience?

Some people go to college because that's what's expected of them from their parents or society; others because they want to get a better job.  For some, a successful college experience might simply consist of getting their degree.  For others, they might want to have more of an 'Animal House' type experience before they feel that they've gotten everything.  Either way, each persons' view on college and the experience that ensues will shape them and their future for the rest of their life, and they can't change that.

What do you expect and/or hope to get from this experience?  What do you think would be indicative of your time, money, and energy having been well-spent?  Why?

I hope to get a great group of friends that I can keep in touch with even after we've graduated, and that my time spent here will help me get a job when I graduate.  I think that in order to show that your resources have been well-spent, you have to not only bring something to the environment, but take and learn things as well.  We're built with two ears and only one mouth for a reason- let's use it.

What is most in your self-interest (having power over others, learning how to discern truth, etc.)?

When I graduate, I don't want to think of myself as being successful because I have a power over people, or that they feel they have to respect me because I have however many letters after my name (Ph. D., etc).  I want people to be able to respect me for who I am, how I act when I'm in a social situation where I have the power, but don't take advantage of that.  I want people to feel comfortable around me because they feel I am down to earth, because they feel that they can trust me, not because I have the power over them.  I feel that I could achieve that by learning and practicing having an open mind, listening to others ideas and honestly consider them.  I could achieve that by seeking the truth through curiosity questions.  That is more in my self-interest than being able to force someone to listen to me because I wouldn't want to be forced to do something any more than I have to be, and I feel that most power trips could have been prevented.

Intellectual Character

In what way, if any, as you recall your own educational experiences, have dispositions been intentionally cultivated?

In many ways, dispositions have been present almost as a stereotype.  It seems that if one hangs out with a certain group of people, then that person will start to act like the group, even if that one person drifts between groups.  The experience is the same inside the classroom.  If someone gets a good grade at the beginning of the quarter, then the disposition is that the same person is expected to get a good grade at the end of the quarter, even though the material is progressively harder to grasp and understand.

It's the same with the teachers themselves.  The students always believe the teacher to be correct, but if a teacher makes a mistake, not many students believe they can correct it.  We've always been told to treat adults with respect no matter what, and some think that to correct said teacher would come across as challenging him/her.  In this light, the disposition would be that teachers are always right, and should always be treated with respect.

What is this reading about, and what should others be concluding from it?

The excerpts from Intellectual Character was about how as a society, we have a notion of 'smarts' and 'intelligence'.  Yet we base those notions on someone being smart, instead of someone acting smart.  We as a community have come to believe intelligence can only be added to a certain point, and once that point is reached, there's no point in continuing because nothing more will be gained.

But then the excerpts continue and challenge the reader to change this; instead of sticking with what society has taught us, we should realize that an IQ score (while a good predictor of performance) is not a predictor of ability.  When tested in real-world situations, the score didn't seem to matter at all, and that in many situations, the individual can simply learn the task.

If you could ask Ritchhart questions about what he's written, what would you ask him?  How would you explain to him the motivation for your asking these particular questions?

I would ask Ritchhart how he came up with the idea that voters would rather have a leader who is considered 'street smart' rather than 'book smart'?  Referencing the top of page 15, I would ask him if he thinks, to help our children become more wealthy, we should tell our children they aren't smart?

My motivation for asking these questions is simply that I am interested and have an internal drive to satisfy my curiosity.

Excerpts from Dweck

Everyone hopes to never have their smarts questioned by others, but even more frightening is to have your smarts questioned by yourself.  So while many pretend to go from day to day with learning goals, they instead try to play it safe with only performance goals.  This is especially evident with many of the people I knew in high school.  They were more concerned about their GPA (performance goals) and getting into a good college that way than trying to challenge themselves with harder classes (learning goals) and consider that many colleges are now looking at the types and difficulty of classes that just GPA's when accepting new students.

And while I think that most parents want us as the younger generation to challenge ourselves as much as we possibly can (learning goals), they also want us to succeed in life.  They are much of the reason we as the next generation put so much pressure on ourselves to do well in life, to be the best that we can in everything we do.  And some of us believe that the only way to succeed is to take the easy way out and play it safe (performance goals).

It is evident in the excerpts that learning goals are really the only way to succeed in life, and yet everyone is held up on performance goals, held up on not looking stupid or "shown up".  So how can we as the next generation change this for the generation after us, and the generation after them?  Shouldn't we try and change society so that the pressures that we are facing with the "doing whatever necessary to get to the top" motto we live with now is gone by the time the next generation should be thinking about it?  Shouldn't we as the current generation be trying to make life easier and less complicated for our sons and daughters when the time comes?  Shouldn't we?

Meaning of Life

What does it mean for a life to have meaning?

I believe that it depends on the individual.  Some people have found their life to be full of meaning, and the most they accomplish is, for example, creating their own business.  And yet, for others to have a meaningful life, they believe that it is necessary to "leave their mark" and make an impact on the world so they will be remembered after they are dead.  But in general, for a life to have meaning, something the person desires must be fulfilled.

What does it mean to be intelligent?

In my opinion, intelligence isn't something a person can chose to either be, or not be.  Instead, it is something that is measured, and therefore it is to what degree do we believe is the "bottom line" to consider someone intelligent?  I consider it to be someone that most likely has superior knowledge in some type of field (science, mathematics, etc), and they have the mental capacity to convert those thoughts into words and help people to understand whatever it is that one is knowledgeable of.

What does it mean to be wise?

Being wise is having the ability to take knowledge (however it is learned) and convert it into something that can be applied into daily life.  I think wisdom is being able to take your (or someone else's) experiences and not only learn from it, but draw conclusions from it.

What relationship, if any, is there between intelligence and wisdom?

I heard a quote once that said, "Knowledge is knowing the street is one way.  Wisdom is looking both ways anyway."  This portrays the relationship very well because it is a fact that the street, for example, may be one way, and even a monkey can tell us that (intelligence).  However, it's from experience that we learn that just because the sign says 'DO NOT ENTER' doesn't mean that an idiot might not go the wrong way (wisdom).

What is the purpose of education?

I believe the purpose of education is to give you knowledge, and from that knowledge, gain wisdom.

What has your experience of education been up to this point?

So far, my experience of education has been that if you can memorize a couple dates and put a few sentences together, you get a piece of paper back that tells you you're a genius.

What would you like to get from your education?

Instead of that, however, I would like to be able to learn something from those dates.  I would like to gain applied knowledge and be able, through various experiences (like college), to turn the knowledge into wisdom.  I would like to learn dates that I don't just need to know for a test so I can pass the class-- instead, I would much rather be average and able to carry on a wise conversation.