Resolve

Resolve is a word I certainly abused while writing my paper, but I cannot find any resolve for resolve. Throughout my research process, I read of these great minds, with whom I could never hope to compare, and each of them has come to some sort of resolve. Even after writing my paper that seemingly comes to a conclusion or reconciliation between two different thinkers, I still cannot find my own resolve for my topic, or many other topics running through my brain from this semester and semesters previous. While we study these great minds, we essentially model ourselves after them and develop our own thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. We search the Scriptures without end for peace and hope's sake, we take to biology or psychology to further our point with empirical evidence or otherwise...maybe this is just me. Nevertheless, I long to be like these people we read about, and yet I have no resolve. Are their own beliefs as unresolved as mine? Did they face the grace with the same questions they told us they answered? Of course we all have questions that will go unanswered in life, but I simply want a resolve, a deeper peace that what I have found thus far.

COMMENTED ON KATELYN'S

P.S. Sorry for my lateness.

Out of Good Blog Titles...

So this is late, but at least I’m getting it... :)

Since Thanksgiving Break I have felt extremely swamped, like I haven’t had enough time for everything, just as most of you probably do. With that being said, I have still found a chance to read Hopkins.

I think my favorite poem was God’s Grandeur, mainly because I actually understood it. I like the idea where Hopkins writes about all the influence that the generations of men have had on the earth, but then he writes,”...for all this, nature is never spent...”

This makes me think of how God provides for all His creation, just like Matthew 6:26 says, “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” I believe we forget that a lot of times and don’t think about turning to God to provide for us.

P.S. I posted on “Aaaaaaaah!” by Ben.

Jefus is the Reafon for the Seafon!

Soooo, hey guys!
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good morning!
(yes, I do know those are not the words, but it's like, almost one thirty)

I hope everyone had a magical thanksgiving, and the turkey didn't gobble away. :)
REMEMBER! THE real reason for Christmas is.... *drumroll please*
Jesus! :D
I had a little girl at work the other day sing me the ten commandments song after telling me "Jefus is the reafon for the seafon" She may have had a lisp....? Still super cute.

Anyway, I like(d) reading Dostoevsky, and thanks you the Honors Final Drama I can properly pronounce his name. I think. Also, I love you all.
I now bid you all, adieu.

What would happen if I wrote a blog all about nothing?

First of all, if you got the reference kudos to you on your music selection.

Moreover, Nietzsche apparently knew Communism and Nazism was coming.

Secondarily, When I read about the New Idol, I immediately thought of the people giving up their rights to the state in order to obtain a pseudo-happiness.

Sixthly, and lastly, This is what happened during the Russian Revolution

Thirdly, Look where it got the Russians

and to conclude, I commented on Callie's "For some reason Kierkegaard is on my mind"

Aaaaaaaah!

I emerged from the practice rooms about ten minutes ago and I just now remembered that I had a blog to post! As my life has been consumed with memorization of piano pieces, voice pieces, a scene from "the last night of ballyhoo", the honors drama and writing a research paper, I haven't had time to read Hopkins. I've been scouring Dostoevsky and Descartes for tidbits of wonderful information, though. Something that I've found really interesting (and actually decided to base my paper around..) is a quote from one of my sources for my paper. The source is an article by Kerry McSweeney exploring the dreams of a few great literary works (Crime and Punishment, Wuthering Hights, War and Peace). The main quote I'm using from her article is this.

"What madmen represent to themselves while awake is also represented in the dreams of the sane while they are asleep."

As I have more paper yet to write, I'm just going to leave this quote suspended in cyberspace.

So what did we learn this week? Nothing? Good. That's exactly what I thought.

Until Next Time,
Benjamin

P.S. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

P.P.S. I commented on Blahrgoty1131's blog "Uplifted"

Can't Wait For Spring

Christmas is like nothing else. It brings joy and cheer, for
different reasons in everyone. For most of us here, it is the beautiful
reminder of Christ’s coming down to be with us for a little while before
sending the Holy Spirit to live with us. But it is so cold. So, when I looked
at Hopkins's poems, I went automatically to Spring.

"Nothing is so beautiful as Spring"

I love the reference to Spring being like the garden Eden. Unfortunately, our sin soured that and those happy times, like Spring, sour as well. Which brings me back to Christmas. Because of it, we could have an even more joyful "holiday", Easter! (Which is in the Spring). This poem just reminds me of how we will have Spring, Christmas, Eden, Easter, and God all wrapped up in one once we finally reach Heaven. There's nothing better to work for than worshipping our Lord and Father which I think this poem is a good reminder of.

For some reason Kierkegaard is on my mind....

It interests me that so many authors that we have read have written concerning the universal law, and stepping over it. Kierkegaard speaks of the man of faith who can overstep the universal law at the command from his God; Dostoevsky presents Raskolnikov who tries to step over these bounds like Napoleon, but whose action results in epic failure; and Nietzsche who presents the idea of the superman who he believes should not be ashamed to express his uniqueness and cross over the lines of the "supposed universal law." The main question comes up of the importance of the ethical, and when/ whether or not these bounds should be crossed? Or, for Nietzche the question even arises of the validity of such a universal law, or if such a law even exists at all.

It is interesting that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky seem to come to different conclusions about the ability of a person to overcome the universal law, despite the fact that both are christian men. For, Raskolnikov, in his attempt to trespass the universal law, fails and in the end accepts it. Whereas Kierkegaard presents Abraham as a wonderful example of how one can enter into the mystery of faith and nobly transcend above the universal law. Perhaps a closer look at the circumstances surrounding Abraham and Raskolnikov would provide a better understanding as to why the authors came to such different conclusions. Maybe they were focusing on different aspects of the same topic....

I commented on Jamie's God and Science

Uplifted

Hopkins' poems are so bright and cheerful when compared to the heavy reading of late. Some of the poems have a darker tone, but for the most part they are cheerful. My favorite of the poems was "Hurrahing in Harvest." The imagery in the poem creates a very picturesque scene for the reader. Being someone who loves horses, I connected most when Hopkins compares the hills to a stallion in lines nine and ten. He says "And the azurous hung hills are his world-wielding shoulder / Majestic - as a stallion stalwart, very-violet sweet! -- " I think the form is a fourteen line sonnet, however I'm not sure what the meter is. The best part of the poem is the end when Hopkins talks about the beholder seeing a beautiful nature scene and how it uplifts the beholder's heart. It almost makes the reader have that same excited feeling when reading it.

First blog in weeks. feels weird.

I would like to take this moment to share that I hate writing papers… simply because I don’t feel like my brain naturally focuses on things in the “A to B to C” sort of way. It’s more like B to F to Z back to B and then on to A. It’s a very difficult task to try and be organized when I’m jumping between paragraphs trying to sort things out. That being said I guess I’ll talk about Nietzsche. Nietzsche has this quote where he says: “I should only believe in a God who understands how to dance.” And though this is not the point of my blog I feel if Step-Up had a Biblical basis that would be the major quote of the movie. I had no real issue with Nietzsche up until he started talking about women. Up until that point I was just boppin along thinking that though he was completely weird he was at least interesting… and then the chapter. He refers to women as a “dangerous plaything” that, essentially, is only good for getting pregnant and popping out kids. So when I read that it was confirmed in my mind that I don’t really like him. I guess it just made me think of his as just a male ego who thinks he’s more important than he actually is. I do admit that I was still intrigued by his stories… because they’re just super weird. The man carried around a corpse for goodness sake.

a sinful image.

This might not pertain so much to a direct reading, but throughout all of them, I have been constantly noticing and thinking about one thing: How a human, that is created in the image of God, can be naturally sinful. I've gone in circles around this one thought for a few weeks now. I recorded my thought process with sticky notes, and every time I thought of something new in the process, I would write it down on a sticky note and stick it up on my wall. I definitely looked crazy by the time it was over, but I think I might have a conclusion, it is probably not the right conclusion, but it's one. So here's my thought process:
Even though we are created in the image of God, there is no way that we can be good on our own doing. (there is no one who does good. Romans 3:12) Well, first, what does this say of the hope of someone who doesn't have the Anchor that a Christian would have.
Humans are an intertwining of good and bad, of God and flesh. Jesus is pruning the vine of all bad things until judgement day. Therefore, we can't be fully glorified in this fleshly, earthly life, even though we are presently created in the image of God.
God created us in His image, but at the same time, we're sinful. So did God create us sinful? or did He create sin? Or, is sin simply the opposite of good? However, if it was an exact opposite, it would have the same measure of the good, meaning it was created. So did Satan have enough power to reject God and create the opposite of good, which is sin? But isn't God the only Creator? Is Satan a creator or deceiver?
Adam and Eve were the first created humans on the earth, but God hovered over the spirits, (Gen. 1:2). So are these spirits Satan and a third of the angels that were cast out of heaven? If so, we can then conclude that God has created His perfect, in His image humans on the devil's kingdom. For those who are not of God, are of the devil. And whoever is of God knows that this earth is not their home because this earth is corrupt. But why is it corrupt? Before the fall, was the garden supposed to be their home? They were never to ascend to His Kingdom?
Anyways, Adam and Eve disobeyed and chose the option of sin. So even though they chose something for themselves, we can conclude that there is no real choice with God. He gives us the freedom to choose, but any other choice besides Him condemns to hell. (The ability to choose, and freedom are "images" of Him that we have.)
So, we are created in the image of God, but obviously not the full image because we aren't fully glorified. (1 Cor. 13:12).
Back to Satan, he couldn't have created sin because God is the only Creator. Humans have no ability to create anything completely new, or think of anything completely new without using something already given to them. Satan must have then taken the goodness of God and lessened it, and thus sin. So sin is the lessening of the good. Which now makes sense in the contrast to us being created in the image of God, because we aren't the full image but a lesser image.

"His ways are above mine, His thoughts higher."


commented on Lane's

Yep, My Mind Is On Fire...

... Literally and figuratively. My paper was on Schleiermacher and Emerson and their differing approaches to the theology of communication. I've never written a paper that related to my life as much as this one did! God spoke to me so much through it, about how He has put certain people in my life and given me the gift of friendships so that I always have someone to talk with about my struggles and discoveries. And, also so that I can return the favor by listening to theirs and learning from them. He also showed me, as I was writing about absolute dependence, that my dependence wasn't completely lying with God like I thought it was. There are definitely certain things in my life that I have failed to surrender to Him. Although this paper drained me (ok, technically that's the fault of tons of coffee and no sleep as a result of paper writing) I actually enjoyed my discoveries. I plenty of AHA! moments that inspired squeals and happy dances!

Here's a few Augustine quotes that I included in my paper and wanted to share with you guys:

1. "By faithfulness we are collected and wound up into unity within ourselves, whereas we had been scattered abroad in multiplicity."

2. "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you."

3. " Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."

 Side-note to everyone: Can I just say that I feel beyond blessed to go to a college where I can openly writes about my faith and grow spiritually from a research paper!!

Commented on Lane's God Complex

Side-note to Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Olsen: 1. Thank you so much Dr. Mitchell for the Emerson: Mind on Fire book! You will see quite a bit from it in my paper! 2. The connection of Schleiermacher to the Sufists was all me. Just wanted to make that clear because I was pretty proud of it. Lol

  

The Last Great King

"There are things that we never want to let go of, people we never want to leave behind. But keep in mind that letting go isn't the end of the world, it's the beginning of a new life."
-Unknown

So, we've reached the end of Realism, and who better to close us out than John Hopkins, who wasn't just a Christian poet but a revolutionary one at that. He came up with his own form of writing. He had his own system of syllables and rhyming, and managed to fuse pure Christian thought with a Romantic sensibility that is really to be admired. Hopkins' poems are proof you don't have to be an up in outer space Romantic to write a beautiful poem about God. In God's Grandeur, he talks of God very matter of factly, describing his omnipotence in a way that is almost inarguable. In other poems, he speaks of God with immense command and control over his subject matter, and it is refreshing to see that Hopkins does not merely speak of God as some great, interstellar romanitic experience but as real being that he knows and is familiar with.

But isn't it also interesting, in retrospect, how much Hopkins is like King Josiah from 2nd Kings and 2nd Chronicles. For those unfamiliar, Josiah, in an era of idolatry and disobdience to the Lord, reformed Judah and brought the nation back to God and cleared out the city of its foreign corruptors. He cleased Judah and reestablished the lost law of Moses, and was the last righteous king of Judah before it fell to Babylon. Next semester we will be entering a godless era of literature where, as Nietzsche predicted, God is indeed dead, and I wonder if there will ever be a man like Hopkins to find a place for our faith. He just may be the last righteous writer before the Modernist era. Do not fear the darkness, though, for we will find truth, we will not lose our faith, we must leave behind the loved ones of the past and move on, no matter how dark it may seem. Do not be afraid.

Thank you for reading my blogs, feel free to comment, have a merry Christmas and God bless you all! BTW, I commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's post, God and Science.

Is that movie you're watching Expelled? If so, I really love Ben Stein and that movie. If not, I absolutely agree with what you're saying. We claim to want to seek truth, but only if it fits our needs. If we don't like what we see, we want to rationalize it away. We as Christians will use that to attack evolutionists and athiests, and they'll use the same thing against us. It's very confusing indeed.

Hopkins

"The Starlight Night" -Everything in this poem seemed to remind me of Christmas, which reminded me of how much I want to be home!

"Look at the stars! look, look up at the skies!"

When I see stars at this time of year it reminds me of Christmas lights. This is the first Christmas that I was not able to help put up lights and the tree.

"Down in the dim woods the diamond delves! the elves ears!"

Elves reminded me of Santa. Then I thought of how long it has been since I have put cookies out for him. I'm thinking that I'll put some out this year."Christ home, Christ and his mother and all his hallows."

The reason for the season is Jesus. Sometimes I feel that He is forgotten in the whirl of Santa, presents, and decorating.

ps i commented on Amanda, Stars

Small World

I am increasingly interested in all of the different parallels that are apparent within the different characters of the works we have studied. We talked about a lot of them in a really cool discussion in which I was able to give you guys a few pointers in Greek. Since then however I have thought about a few more such as:

dare I say it? Raskolnikov and Abraham (in the since that certain men can be go against the universal ethic)

I also found them in good ole Nitz and Raskolnikov... and ultimately these two lead to thoughts of the ideals of such as the likes as Hitler.

These comparisons can bring a lot of uncomfortable feelings. Father Abraham compared to someone who is compared to someone who is compared to Hitler?

Small world. Think about it.

commented on Danniel's

God is Dead

One of the groups in class gave the idea that the quote "God is dead" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra could mean that if people do not act like Christians, God is basically dead to them. If you think about it, the whole reason they became Christians was because of the fact that God is alive. To go about one's life as if He is nonexistent when one claims to be in the light would be pointless. So many people do this because it Christianity is popular or acceptable here, but they still want to be able to live their own life. Oftentimes I think that if we were in a country where Christians were persecuted, we would quickly see who truly loves God and lives as if He is alive today.

This probably won't make sense

Ok so more than anything, this particular blog is more so for me to try and make some sense out of what i'm writing my paper on. In a nutshell, i'm writing about the differences in God consciousness in Poe's Ms. Found in a Bottle and Schleiermacher and the implications of those consciousnesses. My problem though, is that the character in Poe never actually states his beliefs about God one way or another. I think more of what i'm writing about is actually going to be the potential reaction of that character to the God consciousness found in Schleiermacher. Because the character in Poe undergoes a terrible hardship, i am going to attempt to explore the potential extremes of introducing a higher power into the situation under the context of forms of submission. Like i said, this probably didn't make any sense at all, but it was super helpful for me. That is all. Everyone have a wonderful and blessed Christmas!

So with all of the stresses of exams and finals and papers and all that piles up the end of the semester, i decided to blog about what I am writing my paper on. I really enjoyed reading "The Pit and the Pendulum" by Edgar Allan Poe. And i loved the comparison we made of both Poe and Emerson on our midterm exam. We talked about how Poe could be considered a nightmare version of Emerson. I can definitely see how Poe was like the alter ego of Emerson. Poe was dark and wrote on the evil things of man's mind, while Emerson was more optimistic in his writing. In the Pit and the Pendulum, Poe wrote in a way that shows the fear that thrives on one's mind in an experience like that of the Pit and Pendulum is nothing else. It seems to be almost a satisfying feeling to be in that state with no hope that something will change for the better. Emerson, on the other hand, was more hopeful of the things of nature and man's mind. I loved reading both Emerson and Poe!

P.s I commented on Lane's post       

For the sake of brevity I will write about Nietzsche. The man may be insane but he makes some points that we can learn from, though he often takes them to a place that we should not go. For example, he takes the idea of how life is not about a moment but about growth and changes that we undergo, but he takes this to mean that each moment can be without meaning because it will only reoccur. In reality this is not the case, time is not made up of eternal recurrences. Time is made up of many millions of moments in which we decide, make mistakes and learn valuable lessons. Like learning not to leave a paper to the last minute. A mistake but one that can be learned from if I am but willing to make the effort.

commented on Danielle's

God and Science

This week in Dr. Nobel's bio class we have been watching a documentary that explores the lack of academic freedom among scientists as it is related to Intelligent Design. (not Christianity, not even Creationism... just the simple possibility that life could have been designed by some type of intelligent creator.) The information in this documentary has, of course, been disturbing from a Christian point of view, but it has also made me uneasy from a scientific point of view. Isn't the ultimate job of a scientist to find the answers? The true answers, whether we like them or not? Because of this, the line "God is Dead" from Nietzsche makes quite a bit more since. As believers, we know that God is alive. However, among those who do not believe, especially to the point that unbelief has become some type of religion in itself, the simple idea of a creator is ridiculous.

Commented on Lane's "The God Complex"

*Stars*

Here's a lighthearted look at life, because I know stress levels are high with this paper and finals :)
We're almost done with this first semester! It feels like it has gone by so fast, but I have learned so much!
I've had my fair share of stress over the course of this semester, but life moved on and somehow everything got done in time. So for those of you stressing out right now, you should sit back and take a deep breath. If it's dark outside you should go out and look at the stars, because that's what my blog post is about today :)
The poetry Hopkins wrote is beautiful, and I loved the imagery in "The Starlight Night":
"Look at the stars! look, look up at the skies!
O look at all the fire-folk sitting in the air!
The bright boroughs, the circle citadels there!...
This piece-bright paling shuts the spouse
Christ home, Christ and his mother and all his hallows."
This reminded me of "O holy night, the stars are brightly shining. It is the night of our dear Savior's birth."
I could picture Jesus in a manger on that starry night.
One more star reference:
"When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?" (Psalm 8:3-4)
It just blows my mind that God would do this for us...
Those are my thoughts :)
So go look at some stars!

commented on Danielle's

A Bridge of Ethical Discussion

This blog is less relevant to Thus Spoke Zarathustra and more of an extension of my paper I guess. I'm writing my paper on the teleological suspension of the ethical and while reading Kierkegaard and his arguments, I keep thinking why? What is ethics? What determines whether something is right or wrong? Is it Religion? Laws? self-infused morals and instict? Is ethics what is socially acceptable in our society? Furthermore, is what is ethical a universal? Or is there gray area of what is right and wrong? Is what is ethical for me be unethical for someone else and vice versa? Can there be any one thing of which we say "Yes. this act is right in all situations!" or "No, this act is wrong in all situations." I venture to say that there is no act of which is so pure of which it cannot be considered unethical or any act that is so corrupt that cannot be justified in some way.

The God Complex

In the beginning of the book does Nietzsche not come off the mountain proclaiming that God is dead? That would mean that at least in some perspective that he did in fact believe in some sort of god or another. It doesn't necessarily have to be the Christian one but some higher power would have to exist to back up that statement. How then can you go from proclaiming God is dead to there is no god? It's almost as if overnight Nietzsche went from an agnostic point of view to an atheistic one. He also claims to be a prophet as well doesn't he? Wouldn't that require him to receive his power from somewhere? But there is no god or gods at all. Maybe while he was up on that mountain he fell and bumped his head on a rock and that's where he received his power. Or better yet he was breathing gases released from a crack in the rocks like the Oracle at Delphi. That would explain why he had to return to the mountain.

There is one thing that I do agree with Nietzsche about. That is that Christians have become way to complacent. We don't know have to stand up for what we believe anymore. The most glaring point is that no Christians stopped Zarathustra while he is running around claiming that there is no God and he's dead. The same thing extends into today. We don't do anything to stand up for Christianity. The reason why is most of the time we're taking part in the things to bring it down. The same people in church Sunday morning are the same people who are downtown getting smashed Saturday night. As Christians if we don't stand against something then we are saying that it's ok for it to be done. One of my favorite quotes is, "Not to make a choice is making a choice." That is what we need to think about as Christians. If we don't stand against something that we know is wrong then we are saying that it's ok for anyone to do that. I apologize for the long rant I'm finished now.

P.S. I commented on Danielle's post.

Why does Nietzsche always have to negate everything? I mean, the cynic in me can kind of appreciate the whole negating-free-for-all. There are flaws in every human thought process, but to deride it and deny the existence of it all... I mean, it leaves you with bewilderment as to what Nietzsche actually believed. He didn't believe in systematized beliefs. Not only does this make writing my paper on him frustrating and mind boggling, but it makes me wonder how anyone could live like this. I mean, no wonder he went crazy. I feel like many of these senses are just natural to humans, and to deny them is impossible. (But perhaps I'm just too deeply influenced by the West.) Even more, he seems to contradict himself. Several sources that I have sought after trying to make sense of him say this. Now, I'm not trying to completely bash the man--some of his stuff is interesting. The arrogant tone of Zarathustra doesn't seem to balance out with this disbelief in God. If he is a prophet, where is his authority coming from? Just wondering what made him think he was worthy of giving these answers.

--commented on Jannah's

Power of attorney of power to will

What drives us? What unseen force pushes us forward? Is it a distant power such as fate or destiny? Or is close and personal such as motivation, ambition, dreams, and the will. Either way it doesn't really matter. People will use either answer as their excuse for failure or success depending on their personal preference or religious background. But no matter what the answer is, the topic is still interesting: do I chart my own path? Hollywood has even riden the wave and created movies showing characters fighting for and making their own destinies as in "The adjustment Bureau" and even a character using things to alter his own person so that his destiny in life may be more desireable, "Limitless" (sure it's not mainly about that, but that's what I got from it in relation to this post ;) ). If you look at it, both of those movies show two different viewpoints on the question mentioned earlier. One says that my destiny is not pre-determined as long as I fight for what I want long and hard enough; I make my own destiny. On the other hand the view is as such: My possible fates are A,B,C. If I do this action, A will result. But if I completely change my nature and who I am, I unlock a whole new option not previously available, option D. But, no matter what side of the table you sit on (fate or will-power) you surely must admit there is a grey area, a road where the paths intersect; the point when your own dreams and ambitions merge with your destiny; a moment of recognition where you see yourself in the bigger picture: fate. But before we can ever reach that point you have to somewhat know what you're dealing with.....you. There is no more complicated mess than the human heart, soul, and mind. But it's a beautiful mess, I think. The way emotions, dreams, and logic can all inhabit one person is beyond me. Though they all inhabit the same being they are not always equally dispersed. Sometimes logic dominates and we see a Spoc(k? ch? sorry trekkies I can't spell). Sometimes emotion dominates and we have the crazy lovers throwing all away for someone they feel a connection with. And then we have those dominated by the will............ The will (I believe) is the most powerful force inside the human breast. The will, will stake even it's very existence upon it's fulfillment. We've seen these people throughout history; people that would not stop, people that pursued. The world was too small for Alexander the Great. Napolean has been quoted as saying, "Circumstances? What are circumstances? I make circumstances." A passion inside of us that says no matter how high we climb, we are never satisfied. It's a hunger. It's the "I would sooner fail than not be among the greatest!" mindset. It looks destiny in the face and spits on it. It whispers in the ears of fate and laughs. You see the will, the will to power, trumps all primary purpose. It trumps destiny, until the will becomes one with destiny.

So what do I believe in fate v. affirmative action? To quote Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai, "I belive a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed." Where does God fit into all this? I couldn't tell you. Does this link up with the pre-destination debate? Probably so. Was I biased in writing this blog? Ofcourse I am, I wrote it. Am I tired? Yes. Can I sleep? No. Am I done? For now.

      So yes I want to start this blog off with honesty. Honestly this last week has been super hectic for me, I've barely had time to get anything done, especially with Christmas Spec. (Which by the way you should all come see IT'S SUPER AMAZING!) So I did not get to finish reading Crime and Punishment. Now with that being said I'm not sure what I will pull from my brain to write about.

      I'd have to say I am in love with the Crime and Punishment. At that times though it takes to places I do not always want to explore. I constantly feel like I'm being pushed to explore the darkest depraved paths of mankind, yet even though I want to turn from it , I cannot I must find out what happens next. Dostoevsky has a way of forcing us to see reality. The people we'd like to sweep under the rug, the places we'd like to forget about, he uses as the main characters and scenes. Crime and Punishment is excellent at reminding people of what is real. The I love how Dostoevsky makes his characters seem like real people. They have complex, entangled and crazy lives. This makes the book all the more interesting I feel like I can identify with the characters. Although I'm not finished with the book, I hope to soon. I'm also now about to crawl in bed, since God let me miraculously remember my blog.


P.S. Um... If I didn't have to write one this week do I get extra credit?

Give thanks and Be Merry.

Hope everybody has a good thanksgiving break and remembers all their thankfful for. :)

Talking to Oneself

When I was reading C&R and began to realize just how much Raskolnikov talks to himself, I thought about it for a second, and I realized I talk to myself quite a lot. Now, I will say that the way and amount Raskolnikov talks to himself borders on the crazy spectrum, but as weird as it seems to say, I am definitely an advocate of self talk. In Raskolnikov's case, his self talk is mostly doubting things about himself and questioning things that he does. This kind of self talk only makes any insecurities one has get much worse. From the very start of the book, Raskolnikov is characterized by his self talk, and specifically by the way he talks to himself. He shows that he does indeed have the intellectual capacity to consider certain topics of weight, but he also hints at some very deep seated personal problems in doing so.

p.s.- sorry this is a really random thing to notice

This is my favorite book ever please please don't blow it off. Read it.

I first read this book a year and a half ago for summer reading. I went into a local used bookstore to find it; after searching on my own for awhile, I finally resorted to asking the cashier if he by chance had it. "As a matter of fact, I do," he said. It was right behind me on his 'Favorites' display. He intensely asked me what I was reading it for, and I told him for a my AP English class. He then looked at me very seriously. "This book changed my life," he said.

I know, I know right? I thought it was really weird. And yeah, that's a cheesy way to start a blog, but that encounter always comes to mind when I think about this book. I get what he was saying now.

The depth and complexity of the characters Dostoevsky creates is incredible. The suspense that builds is just agonizing. Raskolnikov, this awful lunatic, is simultaneously such a powerful conveyer of truth. Like Mitchell said, that is what makes it so incredible--not that the profound comes from some holy Christian person, but from this despicable sinner. It's fabulous writing all around. The ending gets me... the redemption is just so beautiful! I just can't wait to get there. But perhaps all the suffering through is what makes the ending truly worth it, so I suppose I'll just try to contain myself until then.

I guess I have been struck anew with the strength and beauty of Dunya and Sonya's characters. They truly are very similar, and wonderfully complex. Sonya is my favorite--her sacrifice is unimaginable. Ironic that a prostitute can be a Jesus figure in a book, huh? I don't know, I guess all I can say is that Dostoevsky is the man.

I don't truly know what else to say, other than how excited I am to get to discuss this.

This book just does something to me. I can't explain it.

--Danielle

Commented on Samuel's post talking to oneself.

In my head!

Although it is tech week for "a 1940s Radio Christmas Carol", which you should all come see by the way, I still found time to glance over the reading material and I actually had a wonderful conversation with my mother about it. Crime and Punishment just happens to be one of her favorite books of all time, and as we were talking about it we came to the topic of psychosomatic illness.

For those who don't know, psychosomatic illness is defined as a disorder that involves both mind and body. In other words, the illness may be emotional or mental in origin, but it has physical symptoms. In part II, Raskolnikov begins to suffer from such an illness caused by the grief of his own actions.

Anyway, as I was talking to my mother, she mentioned that she had read a book recently about psychosomatic 'stuff' and christianity, and she told me that it is mentioned several times in scripture. Being my mother, though, she didn't tell me where, so I had to go digging for myself. Here's what I found.

"3There is no soundness in my flesh
   because of your indignation;
there is no health in my bones
   because of my sin.
4For my iniquities have gone over my head;
   like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me."Psalm 38: 3-4

"7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; 
   fear the LORD and shun evil. 
8 This will bring health to your body 
   and nourishment to your bones." - Proverbs 3:7-8

I found a few other verses that I will post at the bottom, but those two are the most relevant. Both of those verses seem to describe Raskolnikov perfectly, well the part about being weighted down and ill because of guilt/sin, not the fearing the lord and shunning evil part.

So, what did we learn today? Nothing? That thoughts can have physical repercussions? That Ben's mom is pretty cool? All good answers. Tune in next week when I'll have time to legitimately read ALL of the text.

PS. I commented on Samuel Oliver's Blog "I don't think it has a title."

PPS. Here are the other scriptures.
John 3:20
Romans 7:23-25
Matthew 23:28
Proverbs 28:13

All About The Murder

English blog 11/16/11

I think it’s really interesting to see the thought process that this man is going through leading up to the murders he commits in part 2. While the act is pre-meditated, it is clear that something is wrong with the guy’s head and he definitely appears a little crazy. He barely eats at all, he is always commenting on the sickly way he feels, and his thought process does not seem like the way a normal person thinks. Actually, it kind of reminds me of honors. I think that if this guy was put on trial he could definitely get away with pleading insanity, even though the act was premeditated. It was not very organized, tons of evidence was left behind, and he acted totally guilty afterwards. He also thought that it was his civil duty to commit the murders due to his own thoughts and then the quote from another scholar “Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?” If these murders were committed today in the exact same way the killer would be found in no time.

-Susan

P.S. I commented of Sam's "untitled"

Russian Authors and Taoist Philosophy

As I read Crime and Punishment, I am increasingly intrigued by Raskolnikov. Here is a dynamic, developing character that seems to constantly flip back and forth from compassion to contempt to compassion to contempt again. As I read into the thought processes of him, I notice that while others see an evil, murderous creature in him, there is also some good as well. For example, although he immediately regrets the decision because of (A) his lack of money and (B) his concern over how the money will be used, the fact remains that he did give money to Sonya's family. In addition, (pg. 154-55)in an uncharacteristically good mood, he again is compassionate in his giving to the street-singer.

In reading this, I am constantly reminded of the Taoist yin yang symbol:

There is the Yang side, the white field with the black spot (insert Treasure Island reference here) and the Yin side, which is the... you know what, you can figure it out. What it represents is that, in this world, there is always an element of the other in two opposing forces. (e.g. Light cannot exist without darkness, initially there must be darkness for the light to fill. Likewise there must be or have been light at one time in order to recognize that the darkness is there.) Bringing this all back to Dostoevsky, even though Raskolnikov is widely considered to be criminally insane. Some will to do good is inside him, even though it is suppressed by his murderous thoughts and intentions. (spoiler alert: apparently Sonya thinks the same way)

~Cody Martin

I posted on Sam's... untitled...

I find it very interesting the way that Raskolnikov is paranoid about his hat being to obvious. Once he realizes that it sticks out and is obvious he makes a mental note that he should wear a less obvious hat for if and when he commits the murder. If I was planning a murder I would never be able to carry it out. I would always be paranoid about all the little things. I think the only way I would be able to do it would be the same way he did. In the heat of the moment.

p.s. I comment on Katelyn Osborne's post.

I am a Fan of Dostoevsky's Attention to Detail

As I read Dostoevsky I found myself very pleased with his attention to detail. These details enrich the plot and define the work as a whole. What would crime and punishment be without it? An excerpt that was a particular favorite of mine is a good example of the detail he uses. On page seven he describes Lizaveta’s apartment. Not only does he describe the apartment, but he highlights Raskolnikov’s reactions to it. Further, he writes in a way that lays out the most inner thoughts of the main character. This is not easy to accomplish as a writer. Many writers try to do this, but somehow Dostoevsky hits it on the nail. He highlights tendencies in humanity by describing the brutal details inside and out.

P.S. I commented on Chloe's

A Crazy Good Time!

"The lunatic is in my head, you raise the blade,
you make the change, you rearrange me 'till I'm sane.
You lock the door and throw away the key,
there's someone in my head, but it's not me."
-Pink Floyd, Brain Damage

Dark Side of the Moon-buy it, lock yourself in a room, put it in an iPod/CD player and turn off all the lights. It's freakin' awesome (and no, you don't need drugs like some people suggest you do)! But I digress to make a more pertinent point-is Rodya insane? For those looking on the outside of Rodya's steady decline, it would certainly seem so. Just looking at his behavior, we see sarcasm, despair, rage, and an overall disgust with everything around him. He's like all the most annoying types of soap opera personalities rolled up into one! Of course, the inward focus on Rodya's mind is the main focal point of the novel and the ultimate conflict to be resolved, because if he's insane, he has good reason.

If one were to ask Rodya if he were insane, he would probably reply no, but in the back of his mind he'd be going over all the reasons why you asked him that question, what the implications are of that question, whethere you suspect him of anything, whether he really is insane, and then will either get really angsty about the whole thing or just blow up at you! Your first thought would probably be that he's a head case, but is he really? I'm reminded of me Edgar Allen Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart in which the narrator insists that he is not a madman because a madman would not be as genius as he is-genius enough to go through with the master plan of murder! Rodya is clearly a smart man, evidenced by his dissertation on the "superman" (hello, nihilism!), he knows exactly how to handle certain situations, but all that changes when he commits murder. Suddenly, what once seemed so rational and explainable suddenly becomes a living nightmare, as logic and careful planning are dissolved by guilt and fear. Is Rodya's loss of control of his thoughts and actions the extent of his insanity?

What if you were in his shoes? Think about it-when's the last time you were doing something-or did something-you know you shouldn't have done. How did you feel? Did you maintain composure during and after the fact, or did doubts start having their way? Did you start looking over your shoulder uncontrollably, wondering whether someone would figure you, or-please no-how you would be punished?! If insanity is losing your ability to make sound judgements, then Rodya became insane the moment he chose to kill Alena, as that decision really has no good or helpful motivation. But before you start assuming you've never dabbled in insanity, think of all the times you've done something terrible and knew that you could be found out. Think of how you would feel to know that one irrational, evil decision could ruin everything about you. Suddenly, crazy isn't that crazy to think about, is it? Finally, to quote the Joker, an expert on the subject, "AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

So, that's that. Please feel free to comment as you please, thanks for reading! BTW, I commented on Lane's post, Man Complex.

I agree and disagree with you, although in the end I think I'm mostly agreeing with you. Yes, I know from personal experience that men deal with emotions in an equal and opposite manner as women, where we let things explode and things get broken. This is especially true when it comes to fixing problems, as that typically make us happy-the opposite is true when we can't. I could throw in a comment about how the family needs to turn to Jesus and trust Him as their provider, leaning on the church for support, but seeing as how Rodya doesn't believe in an afterlife that kind of compounds the problem and doesn't do anything to help his own male complex. That's sad.

Man Complex

As men we want desire to the one to fix all the problems that our families experience. Washing machine breaks we want to fix it. Grass needs cutting we do that too. Sometimes though things happen that we can't fix. Being unable to pay the bills is the number one reason for male suicide. Raskolnikov is happens to find himself in one of theses situations. He really wants to help his family but at the same time he knows that he can do nothing to help them. His mom and sister give him all they can to help him stay in school but it's just not enough. His sister is even willing to marry a man that she doesn't love just to get Raskolnikov a job so he can continue his education. He wants to stop the marriage but he doesn't know how since he doesn't have the funds. Men hold in anger and frustration until it explodes out of them. This is what happened to Raskolnikov when he killed the pawnbroker. He didn't really want to kill her but he needed the money and in his mind that was the only way that he thought he could make ends meet.

P.S. I commented on Katelyn Osborne's post

Cue The Screeching Violins

I decided to read Crime and Punishment with Alfred Hitchcock's movie, Psycho, playing in the background. As I was reading the first part, I realized how similar Psycho and Crime and Punishment really are. For those of you who are not familiar with the movie, the female lead is killed off about 30 minutes into the movie. This was one of the biggest shocks in a movie that I had ever seen. Crime and Punishment did the exact same thing. The crime was committed in the first part of the book.
Alfred Hitchcock did this so that we would actually relate more to Norman Bates. I feel that Dostoevsky is doing the same, but slightly different. He wants us to be able to see the thoughts that progress through Raskonilkov as he deals with what he has done. We are forced to relate to Raskonilkov now just like Hitchcock wanted us to with Norman Bates. The fact that Psycho was on while I was reading Crime and Punishment is merely coincidental. Maybe this means that I have seen too many horror movies.

P.S. I commented on His Beloved's blog, "No Title"

That Crazy Spy Guy

Ok, I have got to be honest, in the beginning of the book I thought Raskolnikov was a spy because of how aware he was of things, and the way that he thought things through in his head. Later, of course, I realized as he was plotting the murder that he is actually just crazy. The fact that I could confuse a crazy person for an intelligent spy is hilarious to me. It just proves the thin line of character that people sit on. This also really convicts me about how easily I judge people and write them off stereotypically. Please forgive me for using a Biblical reference, it's the only one I can think of right now, but how many people thought that Jesus was crazy when He was actually the Savior of the world? It just makes me want to laugh because it's so easy to pass from the absolute truth into absolute craziness. All of these thin lines in life have really been on my mind a lot lately; I seem to be obsessed with finding the thin line in every situation. I still ponder about the thin line of seeking truth and then going too far, and attempting to be like God in our knowledge out of pride. Anyways, this book really makes me think of how quick I am to observe someone, judge them, write them off, and never again consider who they might actually be, and not just in the realm of craziness and genius, but with everything. I so easily look at someone and immediately think of them as materialistic, or prideful, or dramatic, when I actually have never engaged in a conversation with the person. It's an awful trait to have.

Self- Analysis

Yesterday, I became angry unfortunately at another person for their decision which I did not agree with, and upon arriving at the realization of my anger I realized it was an over reaction (no surprise this happens a lot). Upon a deeper search of self I realized I have had a lot that I have been stressed about (muscle and bone test in anatomy-GAH!) and the other person (who made me mad) probably did too.

Now, I know this seems like a very obvious statement, in fact quite unrelated to this reading of Crime and Punishment. But as Dostoevsky paints the portrait of Raskolnikov he shows the audience not only his actions but the development of his character. The audience learns the situation surrounding this gruesome murder. Yes, murder is wrong (lets not get into an argument about that statement), but sometimes it is important for people watching the situation to understand how and why the circumstance lead to that murder. No, not to excuse the person for their actions; not because if they just understood themselves they would make better decsions. Rather, we need to examine others circumstance to recognize our own reality, we stand on the tip of making possibly deathly decisions everyday...

Don't believe me? Let's talk about texting and driving because it is easy...Every time I get behind the wheel I have a responsibility to drive properly for the safety of myself and others. Now, if I look at someone else who causes a wreck and say, "Wow, that idiot!" but do not examine the situation and recognize my own possible connections with that conclusion then I have learned nothing.

Thus, as Dostoevsky painstakingly puts together the pieces of this puzzle, we should not distance ourselves from the main character nor walk on unaffected, but examine our own selves.

I commented on #iheartvillans by BK

No Title

So in psychology, i'm learning about psychotic disorders. And as many have already said, Hedda definitely fits under this category. She is one of those "villains" who i believe seems to go completely insane as time goes on. Hedda seemed to be fine as we first started to watch the play. It seems that she becomes more insane because she loses control of everything. Hedda only seeks for her own way but everything doesn't always go how we want them do they? It kind of reminds me of the following words:
  "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." Does that sound familiar? ;) It's like Hedda is spinning her own little web and by the end of it, she gets all tangled up.
    Hedda, on the other hand, made it easy to seem like the good person. It was easy to sympathize with her, but at the same time, I did not like her at all. She married a guy she did not love, still had feelings for the guy that did not profess his love for her either. It was like dreamed for a better life while settling for a simple one.

p.s i commented on Amanda's Post

The Cure for Boredom: The Unexpected

While reading Crime and Punishment for class, I honestly did expect the murder to happen within the first part of the book. Why? Because when, at the beginning, Raskolnikov already had the act planned out I knew he was very close to the kill. Again, why? Maybe because that’s the way I think. Why waste an entire book on plotting the kill, when you can perform the action within the first part and then devote the rest of the book to how the action affected the person that committed the murder. I’ve always thought this way, maybe it’s why I’ve always loved detective novels (the possibility is there that this is the reason I expected the murder to happen in the beginning instead of the end).

Okay, so what is the “unexpected”? Webster defines it as, “Surprising, happening without warning.” Okay, well, obviously the murder in Crime and Punishment wasn’t unexpected, like I said. Now, Dr. Mitchell and Tiffany planking in the middle of class, that was unexpected. The book Inheritance by Christopher Paolini, is full of the unexpected, so I’ve heard. I’m only a fifth of the way through it, but seeing as the three books preceding this one were full of twists, I know that there’s going to be a lot of unexpected stuff in it. But since I’m aware that there are twists and unexpected stuff coming, does that mean it’s expected? I don’t think so, because while I know there are things that are going to surprise me in this book, I have no earthly idea where or when they are going to happen; or what they could possibly be. Conversely, after only about a chapter of Crime and Punishment, I knew something was going to happen, and soon, making it a very expected.

To me, the unexpected is what you should look forward too, why? Because if you knew exactly what was going to happen every minute of every day, you’d get bored, and you’d be boring too, despite what Kierkegaard says about boredom. The unexpected is what makes Christmas so fun, especially for little kids. Have you ever watched a little kid on Christmas Eve? They are always so excited for what’s going to happen the next day, though they never have any idea what they are going to get, or what they are going to get to do that day. Here’s a challenge for you, not sure this is allowed but I feel it should be. Be excited for the unexpected things that happen to you over the next few weeks. When something unexpected occurs, be thankful, even if it’s not something necessarily good, because the unexpected keeps the boredom out of your life. And, as Kierkegaard says, boredom is the root of all evil. Embrace the unexpected!!!

Until next time,

~Meghan

PS I commented on Brittany’s #iheartvillains

Hedda Gabler/C&P

I would like to start with Hedda Gabler, and would just like to say that as a whole I felt sorry for her. Maybe it's because I have a bleeding heart for any woman who has to live the kind of life she did. First off she felt like she had to marry George because that was her only option or she would be alone and well that to me is borderline tragic because it's true. If she hadn't married what were her other options for her life? I don't feel like she really had any. Not only that but she never went anywhere, she was so confined to that house and that marriage that it drove her crazy. I feel like she was essentially oppressed by her house wife lifestyle that she had to escape it. It's a shame that she took people down along the way but I sum that up to the madness that plagued her because of her mundane life. I also sympathize with her because I too would be a terrible housewife if there were no television.



Now crime & punishment. Which for the record I was secretly hoping would turn out to be an epic romance... but to my disappointment an old lady took an axe to the head.
Anyways.
"...I only say he is a nice man in his own way! But if one looks at men in all ways—are there many good ones left?”
I feel like Razhumin’s character says some incredibly interesting things. Like he just has random spurts of knowledge (and I'm sitting there like "dang Razhumin... get it boy.") This line to me stuck out a lot. I felt like he was speaking to Raskolinov in a sense. Or at least that line is completely relevant to the predicament that Raskolinov is currently in. I just thought this line was so interesting… and essentially it contains a lot of truth (I say truth specifically because that is the perpetual focus in this class). But as I got to thinking about it not all aspects of a person are all good. So really he’s simply right, there’s always something back within a person and if you look at those things then who is really good? Totally intriguing to me. Cause really if I think about it I have qualities or even thoughts that if that's the only thing people saw then I wouldn't be a good person... man, I feel like I'm calling myself out. But honestly if we looked at every aspect of every person there would be plenty of bad things... I'm not positive where I'm going with this other than I'm perplexed by the whole idea.

My Poorly Titled Blog

“A man possessing character, a man of action, is fundamentally a limited creature.” This line from Notes from Underground really stuck out to me. A few lines before, the narrator was saying that not only could he not become spiteful, he couldn’t become anything at all. At first I found this to be very strange. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I personally have found myself, on several occasions, questioning the defining elements of my character. When I help others and do good things, others may say that I am a good person. I, however, will think back to the bad things I have done and know immediately that this is not the case. On the other hand, if I where to be called into question for doing something wrong, I would immediately defend myself for pointing out my goodness.

If a person is consistently good, they become known as good person. To protect his or her reputation, he or she must do good, thereby limiting himself to goodness. The same could be said for those who have bad character. To truly remain unlimited in thought or action, one must remain unpredictable. However, by this logic, (“only a fool can become something”) I think everyone is a fool. If a person is never defined by any one characteristic, doesn’t that mean he has become unpredictable?

Commented on Katelyn’s “Self-suffering”

#iheartvillians

So, I would like to comment on the literary ability of an author to make the audience sympathize with the "bad guy." We can bring this back to Paradise Lost as some of us found ourselves sympathizing with Satan in all of his troubles. The same can be said of our not so virtuous characters in Crime and Punishment. I love Rodya! The only times I dislike him are when, in his delirium, he almost spills the beans on what he has done. Is it bad that I felt bad that he missed the money that would have been untraceable in his robbery?
One thing that this device doesn't encompass, for me at least, is the drunkard Mr. M. Perhaps the situation hitsa little to close to home for me, but I just can't feel sorry for him. I think he's slime. But maybe you guys can share your feelings, or lack there of, for him based on his description in the text. One of my biggest questions about the whole Crime is WHY? Why exactly did he do it? Was it just for the money? Because if that is the case then he isn't really doing much with it now. Or, should we take what he said in his delirium to Mr. Z seriously in that "if he were the killer" he would go back for the hidden goods when the whole thing has brushed over.
And what happens next? We have seen the crime so will the punishment come later? He seems to be slowly reveling himself to those who could bring about this punishment.

ps commented on Will's

Freedom?

Hedda Gabler was one of those plays that challenge you to think. Ibsen was part of the 19th century but this play means so much to our culture even today. Everybody wants freedom for themselves as well as control over their own lives. For Hedda, death ended up being the only true way to freedom, which is accented in today's society. The problem is that no body really knows what freedom is and I don't believe we can ever have true earthly freedom. There is freedom of sin through Jesus and even freedom of worrying about anything. The way I see it, God is the only way to being free of anything in this world because by surrendering the control He allows us to have in this world is also surrendering our worries and society to Him.

Treadmills, Psychosis, and Suffering

How to blog on this? I don’t know… Crime and Punishment has been a good read, but just finding time to get through it has been a challenge. Hence the late nights in the commons on the treadmill, trying to stay awake and follow the psychotic madness of Rodya/Rodion/Raskolnikov… What is his name, anyway? So, 8.3 miles later, I’ve read Parts 1 and 2, and I’m a little bit confused about what all is going on. Obviously I know about the murders, but the underlying plots remain a mystery, so I will just keep reading. I personally think that Raskolnikov is schizophrenic (thank you, Intro to Psychology). He exhibits many of the symptoms, and his delusions and paranoia make me laugh. It’s no surprise that he’s a bit psychotic, considering he murdered two people and now has to live with himself, but I digress.

The main thing that stood out to me is how Dostoevsky brought out the intensity and brutality of suffering in Crime and Punishment. Whether he’s writing about the death of the horse, or Marmeladov getting run over, or Raskolnikov’s ranting and dysfunctional interactions with others, he does not skimp the specifics but gives “all the gory details.” Many authors gloss over these imperfections and circumstances, because they are messy, unorganized, brutal, and painful, but Dostoevsky revels in such details. Suffering is not sentimental or ordinary, but a living entity that is volatile and unpredictable.
Well, that concludes the jumbled musings of Amanda… :)
Commented on: Katelyn’s “Self-Suffering”

"The Best of All Possible Worlds"

In class, last week, we watched Hedda Gabler, and afterwards we broke up into groups and discussed similarities between Hedda and another story of our choosing that we have done in class. Our group maily chose Voltaire's Candide, because it appeared that in Candide, everyone had a sob story. Stories ranged from Candide's banishment, cunegonde's escape and especially, the tale of the woman with only one buttock. (The story of which Dr. Olsen is particularly fond of) The same can be said Hedda. It seemed like she was living the good liffe until she missed her chance at love, then things spiraled until she had to take her own life. Now as we are reading Crime and Punishment, I'm finding the very same problem. It seems at this pont that everything is going wrong and everything is not for the best (Or at least after reading Part 1). Raskolnikov is a poor man with serious paranoia and various other mental issues. The same with the other characters. Look at the dim-witted sister of the pawnbroker. She spent her whole life under service of her wretched sister until she was faced with a painful death. At that point, she did not even put up a fight because she was used to be abused all of her life. If one more example is needed, look at Sonya Marmeladov. She's living her life in a family in poverty as it is. Then, as if things weren't bad enough. Her step-mother forces her to be a prostitute to make sure their family doesn't starve. Why? because their father is a drunkard and lazy and won't go to work to support them.
All of this goes back to the idea of suffering. It seems like practically every major role in these stories has a terrible life that just keeps getting worse and worse. It seems like what Pangloss says in Candide is false. Everything does NOT happen for the best.

Josh Goldman
P.S. I posted a link to a youtube video below. It's from a play on Candide, and it really summarizes Pangloss' ideas well.
http://youtu.be/TlIUXvAdpcw

just another post

I would like to start off by apologizing to you as my classmates for me not being in class much recently. Being a music student has caused me to miss a lot of my classes lately.

With that being said, because I haven’t been in class, I’m kind of behind on a lot of what has been covered, so I would love for you all to feel free to pour some of your recently acquired knowledge into me.

From what I have read so far, Crime and Punishment is really interesting. I haven’t gotten into it so much yet that I can pull out some deep thought to analyze, but I will eventually. So far all that I can say is that I enjoy it and I’m glad we’re reading it.

If there is anything that you all have found that you think is something very critical to know and want to share it, I would be very appreciative.

 Kelsey Moore

Habakkuk 1:5

Commented on Katelyn Osborne's post.

Insects: the Bearers of Truth

Dostoevsky's Underground man is the epitome of Kierkegaard's esthetic man. He is questioning everything, tearing down theories, but unable to accept anything as truth himself. The difference in Kierkegaard's description and the Underground Man however, is that the Dostoevsky presents the esthetic man as somehow greater than the ethical:

"an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be, is morally obliged to be, principally a characterless creature; a man possessing character, a man of action, is fundamentally a limited creature" (1308).

This is much in opposition to Kierkegaard's idea of the ethical. Kierkegaard speaks of the ethical, the ability to choose and to live by laws which have been put in place, as if it is a great revelation which changes man indefinitely. He speaks of the ethical becoming "manifest" to a man. Thus it would seem that Kierkegaard does not view the ethical to be completely limiting as the Underground Man is proposing it to be, or, at least he does not view this limiting nature in a negative manner. For, to speak of the ethical as a power that becomes "manifest" certainly implies that he sees some great advantage or purpose in the ethical life itself.

But what is this advantage which Kierkegaard sees, but the Underground Man completely denounces and trades in for his "disease" of being "overly-conscious?" What is so advantageous about the ethical life that is worth the "limitations" which it implies?

Well, Kierkegaard speaks of the Underground Man's exact predicament. He states,

"Ordinarily we view the ethical altogether abstractly and therefore have a secret horror of it. In that case the ethical is viewed as something alien to the personality, and we shrink from devoting ourselves to it, since we cannot be really sure of what it will lead us to in the course of time." (81)

However, Kierkegaard attributes this fear of the ethical to a lack of transparency. He states, "if a person fears transparency, he always avoids the ethical, because the ethical really does not want anything else." (81)

So quite possibly could the Underground Man's inability to accept the ethical be due to an underlying fear of being "transparent," the fear of realizing that the web of objections and rational theories he has created as a sort of rebelling against society are ultimately "unreasonable" (Kierkegaard 81). Thus, he cannot accept societal norms because with this acceptance comes the confirmation that all of his own theories and reasoning against it are useless and devoid of true reason. In such a theory, Kierkegaard seems to be presenting the limiting nature of the ethical as equivocal with the limits of the truth. In a way, the ethical becomes the truth. This would explain his use of the word "manifest" in describing such an idea.

But, would Dostoevsky agree that one can find such truth within the limits of the ethical life? For after all, if this is true, truth is not found in the individual mind, but instead in the anthill, in the system. Insects hold the truth whereas "overly conscious" men are "nothing."

I commented on Meghan's : "The Cure for Boredom: The Unexpected"

Self-Suffering

I thought about how we talked about "enjoying self-suffering" in class today and wondered why people would actually want to suffer. One reason is to receive more love and attention. "Raskolnikov said nothing and made no resistance though he felt quite strong enough to sit up on the sofa without support and could not merely have held a cup or a spoon, but even perhaps could have walked about." chap. 3. Oftentimes people pretend to be suffering more than they actually are and we look down on them for this, but it could be that they feel the need to be loved more than they are. Suffering can bring you instant popularity and love, though it may not always be real.

Another reason people want to suffer is because their religion says that it is good. Nikolay, for example, believes that suffering is a way to purification and a way to access love. For this reason, some people intentionally inflict suffering upon themselves. I do not believe this to that extent, but I do believe that if we believe in Jesus, he states that we will undergo suffering. Without intentionally causing ourselves to suffer, Paul states that when the suffering comes, we should rejoice in it because God is getting the glory.

PS commented on Anna Rhodes "Self-Love?"

Questions for questions, I've got a question.

Crime and Punishment..what a whirlwind of thought! Initially, I believed Raskolnikov to be an early Ted Kaczynski, but mostly because we have been covering the Unabomber in psychology as of late. Dostoyevsky is absolutely thrilling to read. My attention was easily kept, though more than likely due to C&P being of the novel nature rather than theological/philosophical excerpt. No offense to them, it just becomes drudgery after a while.

As for our friend Raskolnikov, I am really bewildered by his character, especially concerning his sister’s engagement to Luzhin. R sees this as a loss of freedom, as a type of slavery much akin to Sonia’s. Both women lose their sense of self in the attempt to provide for others. But is there something so wrong in sacrificing yourself for the sake of others’ well-being? Perhaps in Sonia’s case as there are immoral or unethical implications there, but is this so much a crime for Dunya? As ever, I am constantly reminded of Pride & Prejudice, but this time my recollection of it is when Charlotte Lucas marries the insufferable Mr. Collins. Her reasoning is that she is a burden enough to her parents, with no future or prospects. So at the age of twenty-seven, Miss Lucas sacrifices herself and her true desires to settle. While Miss Lucas certainly has better circumstances than Sonia, or even Dunya, is this not the same sort of movement? Charlotte was not praised by her peers, but she found comfort and freedom in the life she came to lead.

Back to Raskolnikov, he seems almost envious of the idea. He does not want this sacrifice, but yet he is not willing to deny it. If he denies it, he must make a sacrifice of his own to supplement the one he forbids of Dunya. Would this not make him a hypocrite? “Let my life be ruined so long as my loved ones are happy!” Is there not nobility in such a sacrifice? Or is Raskolnikov’s problem that Dunya can be bought? I have heard that everyone has a price at which they can be bought; is the well-being of her family too lowly a cost for R’s approval? At what point, reader, can you be bought? Perhaps his problem is that there is not real love in this union, and therefore no respect. But how much does respect matter in chronic destitution? Does respect have any worth here, or does it have worth at any time? I do not hate to pull the God-card, so what of Christ’s sacrifice? Did He not die for the sake of many? What about Raskolnikov: does he not kill for the sake of many? Is it simply a matter of how you value human life circumstantially? What is the real difference between Dunya and Sonia, Dunya and the Alonya, Sonia and Alonya? Questions, questions, questions...

COMMENTED ON WILL'S

Recurring Theme

Raskolnikov reminds me so much of Poe's writing. Dostoevsky writes Raskolnikov to be a hypochondriac. This reflects what Poe claims to be a mental problem with Roderick Usher, a possible problem with the narrator in the "Fall of the House of Usher," and a very likely problem with Poe himself. He always thought something was wrong, tricking himself into a psychological problem. Raskolnikov is definitely struggling with this, evidenced by his struggle with the unmentioned act, the odd dream, as well as the way he lives his life. This semester seems to be preparing to throw us back at the darkness that lives in the cave we escaped from.

Ready yourselves.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

Commenting on Joy's "A Guilt He Was Unprepared For"

A Guilt He Was Unprepared for

Crime and Punishment - I am not done with this book yet, but I figured I would write my blog before I forgot to. This guy is very strange. He seems to be repressing a demonized personality from within. However, it comes out and he allows it to rule over him as he brutally murders two people. Then he is tormented from within. He debates admitting he has done it and then the devil in him overtakes him and he decides not to admit his guilt… Or at least that is the case to the point I have read to… He really should find a therapist! LOL :P