Several years ago (as in about four), I would have felt like this assignment was a huge task. But, that was when I was beginning my AP English class my senior year of high school. Dr. Hick used to make us connect all significant facts of a book, story, or poem into a 5-8 page paper, with little or no guide for a prompt. But, that is how you pass the AP tests and get credit for college. One time I was way off-track on the wrong tangent and she made me re-write the paper. How awful! - I had to come up with a completely new set of ideas for the same exact material! Anyway, I'm just stating that I am perfectly capable of doing this, it is just a matter of picking the right topic to dissect. Now, four years ago if someone asked me to philosophize(?) about any thing I'd like, I might talk about problems of others (mentally addictive drugs, bad habits, some other thing that bothered me about people) but now that I have been much closer to the real world for a little under three years, I think that my perspectives have changed a bit. I try to view people as generally good (yes, even before this class) but that they have learned traits or habits that aren't quite so good, and sometimes quite bad. Well, I'm not really sure where I'm going with this now, so maybe the prompt questions will help guide me.
One thing that I am anxious about (I'm prone to anxiety about any little thing, so this isn't too abnormal I suppose) is that when I use the text support, that I might not understand exactly what the philosopher was trying to mean in that particular statement and therefore, making my statements somewhat useless without the proper support.
As for the topic, I like what Dr. A said in class about my previous blog and the personality block that schools enable. My brother was a year ahead of me in high school and when it came to his senior picture, I remember mom saying, "Well they say they want you to be your own person, but everyone looks alike with the tuxes and dress tops that they put on everyone." And she's right, I think that the school wants to iron out the individuality in their class of successful students. To them, it's just: 256 seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds are receiving their high school diplomas because of our greatness, and we don't want them to make us look bad. But, it is significant to me if I graduate 18th in my class which allows me to receive more scholarships and offers to better under-graduate schools, and a lot of times these smaller schools who are competitive are looking for someone with a personality. It's the difference between book smarts and intelligence.
I'm not really sure where I will get with this paper, but somethings always turns up for me. Plus I have great resources in "friends" that enable me to open my mind to other possibilities I would have never encountered before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're initial line of thought led to a very interesting thought: what is wrong with people is a matter of how they were raised as opposed to who they are. This accords with Plato's idea that we all have what it takes to grasp "the good" and that the problem is that society turns us the wrong way. In high schools, as you note, part of the problem is that they must efficiently churn out a certain percentage of graduating students with certain test scores - so the pressure is on numbers and not individuals. This doesn't seem to lead everyone to the good. ... As for understanding the philosophers, don't worry too much. Such things can be easy to fix, and I believe that you have a pretty good grasp of things.
ReplyDelete