Predestination Vs. Free Will

While reading the play Dr. Faustus, I wondered whether or not Dr. Faustus was predestined to become damned, or if by his free will, he had damned himself. This idea goes along with the #8 socratic seminar question from Dr. Faustus. The themes of free will and predestination are a large factor in this play, and depending on the individual views of each reader, Dr. Faustus could have been predestined for damnation, or have become damned through his own free will.

I learned about predestination in European History class early in the school year. While we learned about the Catholic Church, we focused on the predestined views of John Calvin, who was an important leader during the Reformation. The idea of predestination is formed around the idea that God chooses whether you will go to heaven, or be damned to hell at your birth, and no amount of good deeds or any other means can change God's decision. Free will on the other hand, is the belief that you decide your own fate based on your individual actions, be it good or bad. In our society today, the general population, me included, believe in free will, that each of the actions we choose either lead us in the path towards salvation or damnation.

In the play Dr. Faustus, Dr. Faustus sells his soul to the Devil in order to gain more knowledge than God intended human beings to have. This in my opinion is Dr. Faustus' point of no return. In my opinion, thinking about gaining more knowledge, and actually making a deal with the Devil in order to be more knowledgable than intended are different things entirely. The act of selling his soul resulting in Dr. Faustus' eternal damnation relates to the idea of free will. The choice that Dr. Faustus made is what causes him to be damned to hell, he was not predestined to become a person to trifle with the Devil and become damned.

Personally I believe in free will, not predestination. God does have the power to choose the people he saves, but I do not believe that at an infant's birth it can be damned to hell. When we discussed this idea in European History, I immediately disliked the idea, feeling that good deeds and faith should be able to save anyone (unless of course they are similar to Dr. Faustus and make a deal with the Devil in order to gain knowledge equal to God). Dr. Faustus in my opinion could not be saved because he made a deal with the Devil and signed over his soul. Dr. Faustus' strong desire to become more knowledgable that God had intended led him to the damnable deal with the Devil.

Role of Women in Society

The excerpt from a 1950's high school home-economics textbook entitled How To Be A Good Wife contains the topic of women's roles in history which I have many opinions about. After reading through the excerpt once in class when we were asked, I was immediately astonished by the fact that this textbook was only from the 1950's. The opinion of the textbook writer seemed so different and completely impractical compared to today's ideas that I actually found the excerpt somewhat humorous. The role of women has changed greatly over the past hundreds of years, but when I realized that this idea of women being very domestic, serving, and self-sacrificing had gone all the way up through the 1950's in this country. In a matter of 60 some odd years the idea of women's roles in society and relationships has changed very much.

After reading this excerpt, I got the feeling that the males in that time wanted more of a peson to take care of them and nurture them, listen to their feelings, and wait on them hand and foot, like a mother. I feel that in today's society, males are looking for independent, equals, who are free-thinking and can make a great companion, not a self-sacrificial housekeeper who lives to serve their husbands. In the excerpt it states for the women to "prepare the meal for the husband, keep the children and atmopshere quiet, listen to him intently, and to make the evening his." In todays's society this idea might pertain to maids or workers for a ruch family in my opinion, but everyday couples are more equal towards each other. Instead of the women just doting on her husband and listening to his problems, the men make an effort to return the favor by listening to their wives and trying to make their lives easier as well.

When I was in family consumer science class, the teacher always directed everything towards all of the students, not just the females. Males were also required to take the class, which really sends a sense of equality through the sexes, showing that men can also do laundry and clean dishes and make dinner. I'm sure that at the time this home-economics textbooks was published and put into place in the 1950's, only women took the class.

Many of the novels and readings we have completed in class such as The Awakening, "The Yellow Wallpaper", and A Doll's House pertain to the idea of the doting and serving wife in past societal times. I believe that Edna wished to be free of this stifling life with her husband, and this fact contributed to her final decision to kill herself, because she knew that a change would not come in her lifetime. In A Doll's House, Nora leaves her husband Torvald in the end of the story, and I strongly believe that this oppressed life of being perfect and serving 24/7 contributed to her final decision to end her relationship with Torvald.

In other cultures and countries, women are still expected to act this way towards their husbands, being very domestic, serving, and obedient. I easily find that I can take this fact for granted because of the great way which the U.S. has evolved into a more equal society for men and women. Without this drastic change in the way women are expected to act towatds men/husbands, I believe that classes would still institue this literature into their curriculum, teaching children and the youth of the country that the oppressive roles which women are placed in are okay and ideal.

Passion, or Obsession?

One of the socratic seminar questions for the novel The Awakening really stuck out to me. Question number 11 says that in 1899 a reviewer of the novel wrote that the novel illustrates, "what an ugly, cruel, loathsome monster passion can be." After reading this quote a few times, I tried to relate it to Edna in the novel. Edna was passionate about finding out what she really wanted in life after experiencing her awakening, but I believe that it was not passion which caused Edna to take her own life. I dont think that passion is the right word to describe it. I dont think people who are passionate about something commit suicide because of it, or commit other negative acts. I think that a better word to fit in this quote is obsession. Edna was obsessed in trying to find out what she was missing, and when she believed that she could never find what she was missing, her obsession caused her to go over the edge and believe that she could not live that way any longer. In real life, whenever I think of people who commit unthinkable crimes, I wonder what caused them to go over the edge. In a movie I watched once (I cant remember the title), there was a husband who killed his wife because she didnt love him anymore and wanted to see other people. The husband was so upset that he killed her, because if he couldnt have her, than no one could. It is later revealed that the husband was obsessed with his wife, and his obsession over her lead him to kill her. This is the example that I thought of after reading the quote and thinking about Edna. I think Edna at first was driven by passion, but it soon turned into obsession because she felt she could not live with herself unless she found what her life was missing. So regarding this quote, I do not agree that passion can be a monster or cruel or loathsome, I think that obsession is the monstrous, cruel, and loathsome quality which controls people's lives and allows them to commit negative acts.

Polygamous Community

The question that I wanted to raise has to do with number 16. of the socratic seminar questions for Things Fall Apart. This question deals with the idea of a polygamous culture in respect to our society, the United States, compared to the society which Okonkwo lived in. In this question there is an African proverb which states, "It takes a village to raise a child." This quote refers to the polygamous culture, and how children are raised by their father and various mothers. I am almost certain that polygamy is illegal in the United States, while it is still practiced in many other parts of the world. I agree with the proverb and how it connects to polygamy. A child with a father and many mothers has that many more parental and adult figures to look up to and model themselves off of, which can easily be an advantage to polygamy. I picture a polygamous family as its own seperate community in a way, where there are many adults willing to help each child as their own and grow up to be successful persons in the community. Family arrangements in the United States are monogamous, where only two people are faithfully devoted to each other. In a monogamous relationship, there are only two parents raising their children, which can have many positives. Instead of the children feeling like they have many mothers or fathers whom they may not feel connected to equally, the children are aware and can depend on their two parents, knowing that they are their only parents. Children will then grow up knowing the ways of monogamy and how it is extremely emphasized positively in many cultures including our own in the United States. In Things Fall Apart, the society was polygamous, with many of the men in the clan having multiple wives. Okonkwo had three wives, and still wished to have more because it correlated to the amount of respect and power that he would have in the clan. I am not sure if polygamy today has these values, where the more wives you have the more power and respect you have. However I know that polygamy is still practiced today in many parts of the world, and there is a great debate about whether polygamy is right or wrong compared to monogamy.

Is It Love?

After reading the novel Wuthering Heights,  the main thought and question that I pondered over was whether the characters in the novel really had or expressed love in any specific way. This questions comes from the questions eight and nine from the Wuthering Heights Socratic Seminar questions. The three main characters whose love is in question are Edgar, Heathcliff, and Catherine. Catherine in the novel has to chose between Edgar and Heathcliff, and choses social class, which is represented by Edgar, over passion, which is represented by Heathcliff. Catherine in my opinion did not really feel love for Edgar. I think he was a respectable, "safety net" for her in a way because he had financial stability, and was a safe choice as a husband. Catherine knew that Edgar could give her the luxuries that she wanted, and she knew that Heathcliff could not provide those luxuries for her. However, I feel that Edgar truly had strong feelings for Catherine. He became extremely jealous when he realizes that Catherine still might have feelings for Heathcliff, and forces her to choose between himself and Heathcliff. I also feel that Edgar had strong feelings of love for Catherine because he doted on her left and right, and they had a child, Cathy together. I dont necessarily believe that having a child together means that they love each other, but I overall got the feeling that Edgar had feelings os love for Catherine, which she was unable to reciprocate due to her feelings for Heathcliff. The question of whether Catherine and Heathcliff love each other is a question that I find harder to answer. In my opinion, there is a great amount of passion between the two, but I never really got the sense of love. I think they only felt strongly for each other because they knew that they could never be together from the beginning. So it was wanting something that you know you could never have, which raises curiosity from each person. In my opinion, Catherine and Heathcliff did not truly love each other, because if you really love someone, you could never imagine bringing or wishing harm or pain to them, or their family. Heathcliff brings harm and pain to Cathy and Edgar, because he felt such strong feelings for Catherine, and she ended up dying before they could ever really be together, although I dont think they ever would have truly been together anyways. Heathcliff causes pain to almost everyone by the end of the novel because of the pain that he feels inside. I think he believes he loves Catherine, but I think he just loved the idea of having someone who he could never truly have. Of course this all depends on how each individual views and values love. After really thinking it over, I believe that instead of a sense of love in this novel, there is a sense of wanting something that you can never have in Heathcliff's case, and the idea of settling for financial stability and other reasons instead of love.

Is it love?

For my October monthly blog, I decided to choose a socratic seminar question from Wuthering Heights. We have not yet had a socratic seminar for Wuthering Heights, but I have read enough through the book to where I can answer question 9. which asks, "Do Edgar and Catherine love each other?" This question is one that I actually pondered on as I  read in the book that Catherine decided to accept Edgar's marriage proposal. In my opinion, I do believe that Edgar really does love Catherine, because he is easily jealous of the relationship between Healthcliff and Catherine, and he proposed to Catherine in the first place, but I dont really think that Catherine loves Edgar. I think that Catherine is somewhat fond of him, but I think that she did not marry Edgar for love. Catherine admits to Nelly that she would be financially secure with Edgar, and he can give her the material possessions that she wants and she knows that Healthcliff cannot give her those things. As time goes on into their marriage, I think Catherine will grow more fond of Edgar, but it is apparent that she does not appreciate the jealousy that he has with the relationship between Catherine and Healthcliff. After really thinking about the questions "Is it love?", I found myself comparing the relationship between Edgar and Catherine to the relationship between Dominique Francon and Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead. Dominique agrees to marry Gail for reasons other than love, while she truly loves someone else, Howard Roark. And I believe that Catherine really loves Healthcliff, but is married to Edgar for other reasons. In the real world as well, people often do not marry for the purpose of love. Some people marry another person because they are wealthy, or they are forced to through an arranged marriage or any other kind of example. This is how this question can be related to life. Overall my opinion is that Catherine does not truly love Edgar, but is inseatd fond of him; and Edgar really does love Catherine because he feels jealousy towards Healthcliff due to their childhood relationship, and he did indeed ask Catherine to marry him, which I assume he did due to the love that he feels for her.

Complete Selflessness

I believe that question #42 in The Fountainhead socratic seminar guide is a very interesting question to ask oneself or others. This question is brought about in the novel by the character Ellsworth Toohey who states, "A totally selfless interest in one's fellow men is possible in this world, Peter." The overall question was asked, is this statement honestly true? In class we discussed how Ayn Rand believe that it was impossible for a human being to be completely selfless, because she believed that people would be selfless to better themselves and for thier own purpose. For example, during our class discussion someone brought up the fact that mothers would selflessly give their lives for their children, but Ayn Rand believed that this was not complete selflessness, but instead being selfish. Ayn Rand gave evidence for this theory by saying that a mother who would give her own life for her children was being selfish in the fact that she wanted to protect what was most precious to her, her treasure, which would be her children. So the overall motive of the mother would be to save her "treasure." After hearing this example in class, it really got me thinking. Until we really delved down deep into the question of complete selflessness, I never really thought too much about the fact that complete selflessness might not even exist. In the novel, The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey appears to be selfless towards Peter Keating with helping him be successful with his work and setting up clientle for his architecture profession. However by the end of the novel, it is realized that Ellsworth Toohey just wanted some loyal followers who would not stand in his way with his dream of taking over everything, including The Banner, which was controlled by Gail Wynand. After really thinking about the question of complete selflessness, I have come to the conclusion that selflessness does in fact exist. People like police officers and firefighters give their lives, and put themselves in harms way for people who they dont even know everyday. Why should Ayn Rand be the person to question this thought? After hearing about her history and childhood, I could understand how she could eventually question complete selflessness in human beings, but Ayn Rand has so many theories and practically an entire dufferent way of thinking and portrayng human beings, so I really didnt believe her theories or understand her questions and concepts from the beginning. Overall in my opinion, complete selflessness does indeed exist, and is shown every single day in the world and society which we live in.