How Do We Define Ourselves?

Lily Tikijian
March 14, 2010
Great Books Period 5
Mr. Priest

How Do We Define Ourselves?

Too often, people are labeled; people put others in to boxes and define who they are. I believe that we don’t define who we are; other people define us for ourselves. Your peers, your family, and friends are the people who define who you are and they shape you to be the kind of person you will always be. For example, you could be this extremely popular cheerleader at one school then you have to move to different state and the only people who talk to you are “goths,” you will change yourself and become one of them to fit in and to feel excepted. Then later you might go back to the old school and people wont recognize you and you will realize how much you have truly changed just by being around different people. I know the people I have been around have affected me and changed me to make me be the person who I am today. We know that by being oneself, people tend to change who they are around others, no matter what the circumstance is. Does anyone really know who they truly are? Or has society and the desire to fit in overcome our true selves? This is one aspect of the Social Me that people will always disagree with. From William James writing we know that he thinks that the longing to fit in and to be accepted has overtaken who we really are as individuals. James notes that, “What may be called “club-opinion” is the one of the very strongest forces of life.” We are driven to be people were not to impress people who we think we need to impress. This is true for Melinda in Laurie Anderson’s novel, Speak. Melinda was once a very popular, fun loving girl, until the night she was raped. She put up this wall and didn’t let anyone in. She became lonely and depressed because everyone, including her parents and her old best friends, were making her feel worthless and like they would be happier if she wasn’t there at all. Melinda gives up trying to impress people and tries to become invisible; Melinda would be considered a “hermit” at this point. A hermit is somebody who chooses to live alone and isolate him or herself from the rest of society. They can’t possibly have a social self since they have completely isolated themselves from any human interaction. Hermits do choose to live alone and not come in contact with other people so they do choose their social self. By being isolated, is it possible to find your true self and define who you really are. I believe its not possible because you wouldn’t have an influences around you so you wouldn’t know who you would and wouldn’t want to be. Its clear from The Social Me by William James and Speak by Laurie Anderson that the way you define who you are is through others. You don’t know yourself until you are around others who shape you to be who you are.

The Dumbest Generation?

Lily Tikijian
December 9, 2009
Great Books Period 5
Mr. Priest

The Dumbest Generation?

According to Mark Baurerlein, author of “The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future,” the teens’ and twentysomethings’ of the twenty-first century are the “dumbest” generation yet. Baurerlein used evidence in his book such as, 47 percent of the grads in 1950 could name the largest lake in North America, compared with the 38 percent in 2002. He also states that a decline in adult literacy “(40 percent of high-school grads had it in 1993; only 31 percent did in 2003.)” But what does Baurerlein have in mind by “dumbest?” If it means, “holding the least knowledge,” then Baurerlein might have a point. But if dumb means “lacking such fundamental cognitive capacities as the ability to thing critically and logically, to analyze and argument, to learn and remember, to see analogies, to distinguishing fact from opinion,” then Baurerlein could be proven wrong. Though Baurerlein is not the first scholar to pin the blame for the younger generation’s intellectual shortcomings on new technology, there is no evidence that instant messaging, texting, iPods, and videogames impairs thinking ability. If anything, I believe that all of this technology doesn’t “dumb” our generation down, it just changes how our brain’s process information. Since this technology changes the way my generation is processing information, this could result in improving our thinking ability. My generation has a different view on knowledge. I believe that we ask questions and question “the truth.” We don’t settle what people have told us to believe, we question and try and find the real “truth.” In Ortega’s essay, On Studying, he distinguishes the difference between a good student and a real student. He says a good student is someone who doesn’t question what already exists; they accept it and are comforted by learning and absorbing that knowledge. A real student searches for evidence and wants to know more and questions what is already considered the truth. My generation will have more people willing to take risks, willing to try new things, and willing to fail. Our generation may not be what society is used too but we are a different kind of smart. We are the generation that will go out into the world and invent new inventions and be willing to try new things. We are capable of so much more then older generations because we want to do more, that’s what we desire to do. We have the ability to think critically, analyze data, and learn and remember. The twenty-first century generation will change the world in our own ways, sure maybe we do hold the least knowledge, but we can learn and remember more then any generation before us and we can put that to good use. We will not jeopardize the future, if anything; we will enhance the future and embrace the challenges that lie ahead.

Why are Americans often so restless?

Lily Tikijian
October 22, 2009
Great Books Period 5
Mr. Priest

Why are Americans often so restless?
Questions: 2, 5

2. Why does a society devoted to equal opportunity weaken each individual?
A society devoted to equal opportunity often weakens each individual. Tocqueville states, “... the more equal men are, the more insatiable will be their longing for equality. When there is always inequality in a society, the greatest inequalities attack no attention. When everything in a certain society is equal, the slightest variation is noticed. No matter how many people strive for equality, all the conditions in life can never be perfectly equal. When man is in a society that is devoted to equality and equal opportunity, is often makes each individual weaker because they notice each slight variation. When a society is considered not equal, then the individuals tend to me stronger because they know not to expect as much of life and they know that life is not fair. A perfect example of this would be America and Old France. America is all about equal opportunity and that we can accomplish anything. This makes us weak because we notice when things aren’t “fair.” Compared to Old France when they knew their positions in life and they knew it was never going to be fair. They are stronger because they don’t expect to much. They deal with what they have and they accept it.

5. Does Tocqueville think Americans are restless because they don’t know what want or because what they want is not attainable?
Tocqueville thinks that Americans are restless because what we want is not always attainable. Even though in America anything is possible, but we don’t have enough time to attain what we want. We have equal opportunities to work and earn what we want. But we don’t really have enough time in our life to always attain what we want and set our goals on. Tocqueville states that, “Apart from the good he has, he thinks of a thousand others which death will prevent him from tasting if he does not hurry.” Man does have enough time to attain what we want. We always want more and we always work for more. Americans are more like this then any other society. Since we have equal rights and opportunities to work and earn money, we always expect more then we can achieve. This is why Americans are restless because we always want more and more. We are never happy with what we have. We always want what is not attainable.

A Tale of Two Cities

Lily Tikijian
September 22, 2009
Great Books Period 5
Mr. Priest

In book 1, chapter three, “he was on his way to dig someone out of a grave.” Jarvis Lorry having a fake conversation with Mr. Manette.

In this whole chapter, it refers to Jarvis Lorry having a dream about Dr. Manette. Dr. Manette is a ghost and has been in the ground for almost eighteen years. The chapter goes on to talk about how Dr. Manette was recalled to life and if he had lost hope that he was going to be dug out. He had. The importance of the saying, “He was on his way to dig someone out of the grave,” is that it refers to someone being “saved” or recalled to life. This is a foreshadow to what happens in the rest of the chapters. Dr. Manette was never actually dead; he was just missing and was “recalled” to life. When is says he was on his way to dig someone out of a grave, Lorry is going to safe Manette. He is going to help him to remember life and to teach him to try and rejoin the world as if nothing has ever happened. Manette had been “dug out of a grave” when he was released from prison and put up in the room where the winemaker was. Jarvis Lorry and Lucie were “digging” him out of this other grave he was in, the grave where he doesn’t remember anything about his life before these days. There going to help return to his old life and help him remember who he was and what he did. These words hold a lot of meaning in this whole book. This sentence is a foreshadow for what is to come in the next chapters.

Why Do We Care?

Lily Tikijian
September 8, 2009
Great Books Period 5
Mr. Priest

Why is it difficult not to care about what others think of you? Do we control the way other people see and think about us?

It is very difficult not to care about what others think of us. It is difficult not to care about what others think of us because humans are social people. We are all extraverted in our own ways. We want people to like us and accept us, and if that means not being yourself, that’s what must be done. People think that being accepted by friends and peers in their lives is one of the most important things. If people don’t accept you for who you are, many people change who they are to please others. Why do we do this? I don’t think we really know why we do this. We feel like we must establish this self-image of ourselves that people like. We do control the way other people see us but we can’t control how they think of us. We can control this by dressing the way we want, looking the way we want, and being the person they want us to be. We can’t control what they think of us, even if we are trying to be someone else, some people can see right through that act and some can’t. Even if we are being the person they want us to be, we have no control over their thought process. We want to be accepted and in some cases, people want to be different and stick out. It depends on the type of person you are and what kind of community you are in. I feel like people at University are more likely to be “themselves” then they would at any other school. We all have to try and be someone were not to fit in with the crowd. We can control the way other people see us, but not the way they think. We want to control the way people think of us, but no matter how hard we try, we can't.

Freedom vs. Survival

Lily Tikijian
August 28, 2009
Great Books Period 5
Mr. Priest

Which is more important - freedom or survival?

Freedom and survival are two extremely different things. Freedom is the ability to act freely or it could mean to be released from captivity or slavery. Freedom is a huge part of being an American; we have freedom of speech, free will, and freedom of press. As Americans we fought long and hard for our freedom. During the American Revolution, we fought for our freedom against the British. We wanted to have our own laws and rule our own nation. We also fought against each other in the Civil War. One half fought for the freedom of slaves and the other fought for the right to own slaves. Americans have been through a lot of fighting and wars to try and keep our country’s freedom, and I believe this to be very important, but not as important as survival.
Survival is more important then freedom because it is the act of staying alive and in some cases, fighting to stay alive. We have to survive in order to live and exist on this planet. Without survival, there wouldn’t even be such a thing as freedom. Mankind has survived through numerous of natural disasters, countless wars, and endless diseases. If men didn’t have such a will to live and survive we might not be in the place we are today. As we have learned from Sigmund Freud’s writing, we have a natural instinct to fight; we also have a natural instinct to survive, For example, if for some reason you are stranded on an Island out in the middle of nowhere with another person and there is only one piece of food left and without eating that food you will die. What would be our natural instinct? It would be to survive and if that meant killing the other person, that’s probably what we would all do. We have such a strong will to live that it would overcome our of our other instincts and believes. I believe survival is more important then freedom because survival is the key to what has been keeping mankind alive for this long. Without survival we wouldn’t have freedom.

Is war ever a good thing?

Lily Tikijian
August 19, 2009
Great Books Period 5
Mr. Priest

Is war ever a good thing? Is there any cause for which you would go to war?

Is war ever a good thing? If I had to immediately respond to that question, I would say of course not. I do believe there is alternatives to a conflict other then war. The world would be such a peaceful place if we could settle our disputes with talking rather then just heading straight to war. I do know that in some cases most countries aren’t willing to talk about the situation or problem, in that case, I believe in war. I think wars need to have more goals and purposes, like take the Iraq war for example. It has been going on for years now and we barely know what were fighting for. We went in with a goal and we are coming out with less people and having not achieved the goal. We should focus on one goal and set our minds to it.
War should have more then one meaning. Of course, it means armed fighting between groups and periods of armed fighting but I think it should mean more then that. I think war could mean a non-violent dispute. War happens because of conflicts and both groups want to put in serious effort to end something. Serious effort doesn’t have to mean killing people; it could mean serious talking or just some kind of non-violent way to handle things. This probably won’t ever happen but this is what I want to happen so that less people suffer and die. Already in Iraq over 4,000 Americans have died and the conflict still isn’t solved.
When you turn on the NBC news at night or any other news cast and they are talking about the Iraq War, we usually hear about all of the civilian causalities. I believe that United States, in particular, needs to focus on less and less civilian casualties. I do know that we try not to purposely hurt anyone but we do need to be more careful. Many people say, “Make love, not war.” I would say I mostly agree with that statement, until I really thought about it. War can be a good thing if it has a purpose and the countries that are fighting are smart about the way they are fighting. By smart, I mean, less civilian casualties and not going over the countries budgets. War might not be the best option in some cases, but mostly, I think war is a good thing.