RDHS was a live on December 12, at 8:30, as two teams came to meet to argue if Hamlet was indeed crazy. Both sides fought hard, but it seemed the negative team (Kelsey, Mellissa, and Jessica Barton) won through sheer endurance as Mary from the affirmative team (Mackaliea, Elida, and Mary) gave up nearing the conclusion of the debate. It started off with strong arguments and logical fallacies flying back and firth but soon changed to a shouting match with no points. In the end the team of Kelsey, Mellissa and Jessica won the argument, with the agreement of all present.
The good arguments were only spoken at the outset, the rest it seemed were just repeats. The affirmative’s made strong points stating that throughout Hamlet, Hamlet clearly showed signs of having many forms of medically madness. The negatives quickly disproved this stating that it was all induced due to grieve from his father dying, thus making Hamlet acting mad. They made clear that it wasn’t madness but just strong emotions in play.
Over all the rebuttals were weak and never really disproved what the opposing side stated, they just stated again and again their own views.
After the free-for-all the entire debate went downhill. The amusing factor is that the crowd did the wave, causing a stir for the debaters. The only voice to be heard the whole time was Mary shouting something, we’re just not quite sure what. When talking to on spectator he stated that Mary “turned into an ogre, was very loud and I fought to throw something”. Not a pretty sight.
Rules were broken, annoyance filled the air and sometimes points were made. People gave up (Mary), as they just didn’t care anymore. Funny to witness, a pain to stay. Although better then some debates it still left some things to be worked on. But one thing is for sure, the negative team won, and Hamlet is declared sane.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The new appeal: Boredom
It was a drowsy afternoon on December 11, 1:30, at RDHS as team Dawson took on team Stephanie in a give-it-your- fight to determine if modern tragedies were better accepted or if Shakespearean tragedies are preferred. From off-topic irrelevant arguments, or lack there of, and discriminating photos, both sides with tooth and nail. The verdict? In my view the Stephanie’s pulled together as while as Rebecca, to claim the title as master debaters.
It seems the only real argument was made by head Stephanie herself, presenting the only argument in such a way that none could dispute it. Her quick words were too fast for the guys and they were soon left in the dust. Or perhaps too fast it seems, as no one else could understand a word she spoke. After a little while Ben stood tall and said with power “Appeal to boredom”, and took his seat to a chorus of cheers.
The insults rang back and forth, from blonde jokes by Dawson to “I have points and you don’t” by Stephanie. Logical fallacies made the air thick so that it was hard to breathe, so many fell asleep.
With the Bouchater on high alert the free for all turned into a full thrown shouting match, where once again no points were made by either side, and gave a lot of people headaches.
Although the hate was in air, the debate ended with love. Both sides had a group hug and shacked hands before exiting the room. While the rest of us cheered for it had ended. It set the bar, low, for the other groups to yet debate, may they do better.
It seems the only real argument was made by head Stephanie herself, presenting the only argument in such a way that none could dispute it. Her quick words were too fast for the guys and they were soon left in the dust. Or perhaps too fast it seems, as no one else could understand a word she spoke. After a little while Ben stood tall and said with power “Appeal to boredom”, and took his seat to a chorus of cheers.
The insults rang back and forth, from blonde jokes by Dawson to “I have points and you don’t” by Stephanie. Logical fallacies made the air thick so that it was hard to breathe, so many fell asleep.
With the Bouchater on high alert the free for all turned into a full thrown shouting match, where once again no points were made by either side, and gave a lot of people headaches.
Although the hate was in air, the debate ended with love. Both sides had a group hug and shacked hands before exiting the room. While the rest of us cheered for it had ended. It set the bar, low, for the other groups to yet debate, may they do better.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Hamlet 1.4 (The extra 1.4, outline)
Intro Paragraph (I know I was only suppose to do a thesis . . .)
Everyone wears a mask to protect their identity from staring eyes. Though not literal these masks protect use more then we think. Only when we are alone with those we trust do these mask come off and the inner person shines forth. When we are hurt we put on a mask to hide our pain, we wear different masks in front of different people and for different situations. In Hamlet, every one wears a mask to hide a secret identity, and once we remove these masks from them we truly have a different view of them.
Reason: Claudius wears a mask at all times
Example: Claudius murdered his brother, the former king Hamlet, in order to become king himself. This was done in secret, with no one but Claudius knowing that the act was committed by him. When Claudius confronts anyone, he must become someone totally different. Claudius puts on a mask of his own. He is no longer the self-serving, cold, murdering man that he really is, instead he becomes a kind, caring man who does his very best to ensure that Gertrude stays with him. His mask was hiding his true self.
Example: He knows he has done wrong and only along with god does his mask come off.
“Where to serves mercy
But to confront the visage of offense?
And that’s in prayer but his twofold force,
to be forestalled are we come to fall,
Or pardoned being down?
He then answers his own question by saying,
But, O, what form of prayer
can serve my turn?
Forgive me my foul murder?
That cannot be, since I am still possessed
of those efforts for which I did the murder!
My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen.
3.3.45”
Reason: Every female has a mask she has to wear at all times
Example: Ophelia’s mask was one of social order, and as such was far more fragile then others. At the play she puts on a cool front towards Hamlet and keeps up appearances.
Example: Gertrude’s mask is one of ignorance. She refusing to belief Claudius killed her late husband. Once Gertrude believes Hamlet’s story it doesn’t affect her. Her mask is of ignorance and possible stubbornness
Reason: Hamlet’s mask was madness
Example: Hamlet blames Polonius death on his own madness
“If Hamlet from himself be taken away,
And when he’s not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not; Hamlet denies it.
Who does it then? His madness”
Example: In his madness Hamlet hurt Ophelia really bad. So much so that thought he loved her anymore, but again it was his madness for when she died he stated that he still loved her.
“I loved Ophelia,
Forty thousand brothers
could not with their quantity of love.
Make up my sum.”
Everyone wears a mask to protect their identity from staring eyes. Though not literal these masks protect use more then we think. Only when we are alone with those we trust do these mask come off and the inner person shines forth. When we are hurt we put on a mask to hide our pain, we wear different masks in front of different people and for different situations. In Hamlet, every one wears a mask to hide a secret identity, and once we remove these masks from them we truly have a different view of them.
Reason: Claudius wears a mask at all times
Example: Claudius murdered his brother, the former king Hamlet, in order to become king himself. This was done in secret, with no one but Claudius knowing that the act was committed by him. When Claudius confronts anyone, he must become someone totally different. Claudius puts on a mask of his own. He is no longer the self-serving, cold, murdering man that he really is, instead he becomes a kind, caring man who does his very best to ensure that Gertrude stays with him. His mask was hiding his true self.
Example: He knows he has done wrong and only along with god does his mask come off.
“Where to serves mercy
But to confront the visage of offense?
And that’s in prayer but his twofold force,
to be forestalled are we come to fall,
Or pardoned being down?
He then answers his own question by saying,
But, O, what form of prayer
can serve my turn?
Forgive me my foul murder?
That cannot be, since I am still possessed
of those efforts for which I did the murder!
My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen.
3.3.45”
Reason: Every female has a mask she has to wear at all times
Example: Ophelia’s mask was one of social order, and as such was far more fragile then others. At the play she puts on a cool front towards Hamlet and keeps up appearances.
Example: Gertrude’s mask is one of ignorance. She refusing to belief Claudius killed her late husband. Once Gertrude believes Hamlet’s story it doesn’t affect her. Her mask is of ignorance and possible stubbornness
Reason: Hamlet’s mask was madness
Example: Hamlet blames Polonius death on his own madness
“If Hamlet from himself be taken away,
And when he’s not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not; Hamlet denies it.
Who does it then? His madness”
Example: In his madness Hamlet hurt Ophelia really bad. So much so that thought he loved her anymore, but again it was his madness for when she died he stated that he still loved her.
“I loved Ophelia,
Forty thousand brothers
could not with their quantity of love.
Make up my sum.”
Hamlet 1.6
When one goes from being sane to insane people will indisputably take notice. This can be seen in Hamlet, once he goes crazy many different people take note. Though he ways in fact NOT insane all appearances made it seem so. How? Internally Hamlet was plotting his revenge, plans within plans, to succeed he appeared to be mad so that people would think him so. All external factors said he was nuts. He begins long monologs that could may or may not be relevant to any point at all. Hamlet acted like a crazy person interpreting plays, in fact rigging plays that he himself wrote. Mad his lover mad and made everyone really mad at him. So Hamlet playing crazy is very convincing, debates have been raging to see if Hamlet is indeed crazy. Was he? No. He was just pretending. How does Hamlets plans turn out? Claudius thinks he is truly nuts and wants him killed, out of the picture. Horatio like a true friends sees through his BS, and wants to help him, and it works out for him as he is the last man standing. Gertrude thinks he nuts and betrays him to Claudius. Ophelia herself goes mad and commits suicide. What a truly happy ending, NOT!
Hamlet 1.5
“Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation, which he subsequently extended to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity.”
So how does this confusing triangle above relate to Hamlet? If one was to go step by comparing each level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to Hamlet one would draw very interesting results. Starting at physiological needs, Hamlet passes with flying colors. But with every other corresponding level he fails, terrible.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs states in 'safety' that a person needs safety of family of morality among others. Safety of family was never to be found, his mother married his fathers murder, his uncle who hates Hamlet and wants him dead. Morality? What morality, he talks of suicide and wanting to kill his uncle, morals were never a barrier for anyone in this play.
That brings us up to need of love from family, friends etc. His family hatred him, back stabbed him and wanted him dead. His lover hatred him, his friends were used against him, and then he got them killed! No love for poor Hamlet!
The second highest need is esteem. Self-esteem, respect of others, respect by others.Nowhere is there to found esteem in hamlet. He talks about killing himself, and no one respects his ravings. He respects none as he wants to kill them all.
And lastly we come to Self-actualization which involves problem solving, and acceptance of facts. Hamlet's problem solving equals killing all around him and going mad, making others go mad and cause havoc. Acceptance of Facts? He could never accept that his uncle is now his step-father. He never accepts what the now has to offer!
So according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs Hamlet needs a lot, and then some more.
So how does this confusing triangle above relate to Hamlet? If one was to go step by comparing each level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to Hamlet one would draw very interesting results. Starting at physiological needs, Hamlet passes with flying colors. But with every other corresponding level he fails, terrible.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs states in 'safety' that a person needs safety of family of morality among others. Safety of family was never to be found, his mother married his fathers murder, his uncle who hates Hamlet and wants him dead. Morality? What morality, he talks of suicide and wanting to kill his uncle, morals were never a barrier for anyone in this play.
That brings us up to need of love from family, friends etc. His family hatred him, back stabbed him and wanted him dead. His lover hatred him, his friends were used against him, and then he got them killed! No love for poor Hamlet!
The second highest need is esteem. Self-esteem, respect of others, respect by others.Nowhere is there to found esteem in hamlet. He talks about killing himself, and no one respects his ravings. He respects none as he wants to kill them all.
And lastly we come to Self-actualization which involves problem solving, and acceptance of facts. Hamlet's problem solving equals killing all around him and going mad, making others go mad and cause havoc. Acceptance of Facts? He could never accept that his uncle is now his step-father. He never accepts what the now has to offer!
So according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs Hamlet needs a lot, and then some more.
Hamlet 1.4
This is my quotable quote ad, using the line "Tis as easy as lying". Hope you all like it.
Hamlet 1.3
Hamlet has a very simple plot, father dies at hands of uncle, mother marries uncle, son pissed off and wants revenge. There is some fun action on the side like lover goes insane and lovers brother blames Hamlet, overall a very intriguing story. Each character has their own views of right and wrong. Every character reacts to a situation in a different way, moping, murdering, or suicide. How each one translates to their own reality influences the way the story plays out.
Hamlet, mad at the world, seeing no support from his mother or lover turns on both of them. He goes on a rampage killing and seeking out a way to avenge his father by killing his uncle. Hamlets lack of respect for life at the end leads up to his death. The second Hamlets finds out his father was murdered can be considered the beginning of the end for him.
Gertrude, seeking social status marries her husbands murdered to secure her place on the throne. She shuts out Hamlet and is oblivious to everything around her. This got her killed when she unknowingly drinks from the poisoned cup.
Claudius thinks he got away with the murder of Hamlet, and is threatened once Hamlet finds out. He sets in motion many ways of killing Hamlet all of which backfire upon himself and lead to his death, the assassinator was assassinated.
The family unit is the most important factor within society. Time and again there are examples of what happens when the family unit fails, mayhem exists. The family unit provides support and security for all, without it society would fall. It is built on order and law, which in turn are the foundation to society itself. The family unit and society go hand in hand.
Hamlet, mad at the world, seeing no support from his mother or lover turns on both of them. He goes on a rampage killing and seeking out a way to avenge his father by killing his uncle. Hamlets lack of respect for life at the end leads up to his death. The second Hamlets finds out his father was murdered can be considered the beginning of the end for him.
Gertrude, seeking social status marries her husbands murdered to secure her place on the throne. She shuts out Hamlet and is oblivious to everything around her. This got her killed when she unknowingly drinks from the poisoned cup.
Claudius thinks he got away with the murder of Hamlet, and is threatened once Hamlet finds out. He sets in motion many ways of killing Hamlet all of which backfire upon himself and lead to his death, the assassinator was assassinated.
The family unit is the most important factor within society. Time and again there are examples of what happens when the family unit fails, mayhem exists. The family unit provides support and security for all, without it society would fall. It is built on order and law, which in turn are the foundation to society itself. The family unit and society go hand in hand.
Hamlet 1.2
The major families: Hamlet's and Polonius'
Crisis
Hamlet's Family:
the crisis in Hamlets family is undoubtedly the death of old Hamlet, which took place before the play. In this 'loving' family, old Hamlet is killed by his brother, Claudius, who then marries the seemingly oblivious widow, Gertrude. So individually Hamlet's crises is the knowledge that his uncle Claudius actually killed his father, Gertrude's is her guilt, and Claudius’s is his fear of Hamlet and the consequences if Hamlet should uncover the truth.
Each deal with their problems in unique ways. Hamlet is depressed and mopes around the castle which makes everyone else depressed, then he goes on a murderous rampage seeking revenge. Gertrude marries Claudius to secure her position her position to the throne. Claudius feeling safe in his position as he assassinated his brother, fakes mourning to create a front, then quickly takes the throne. He tries to get Hamlet killed, but everything backfires and everyone dies instead.
Polonius’ family:
The crisis of Polonius’ family is the king’s death and the death of Polonius by Hamlet in the middle of the play. The family is strangely not overly affected by old Hamlet’s death. But very concerned about their father’s death. Ophelia, Hamlets lover, has a bigger crisis then her brother as her lover killed her father, due to this she goes mad and ends up killing herself. Laertes really mad due to his fathers death seeks revenge on Hamlet, for the death of his father, and for the death of Ophelia and works in hand with the king. He duels Hamlet in which both of them die.
Nuclear Families:
Hamlet once had a nuclear family, with two loving parents and him. But after the death of old Hamlet in went to the dumps. No more was there love in the house and each were trying to backstab each other.
Polonius’ family is the typically nuclear family, besides the fact there is no mother present, there’s good communication, love and acceptance. Over all a good family.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Final ISU
Starship Troopers VS The Forever War
Alex van der Mout
ENG 4UE
Rockland District High School
12/10/08
Empires raise and fall on the blood of young men and women. Armies of humanity have ravaged our fair world to almost the brink of disaster. Humans have perfected the art of war so that it has become second nature to us. Only in times of great distress have enemies put aside the feuding to fight a greater evil then either one of them. That greater evil can take many different forms, as can be seen in the two novels Starships Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein, and The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. Each has its’ own villainous enemies be it bugs or the alien Taurans. When one with a love for literature compares these two excellent novels, they would see that while they are similar “[Haldeman’s] war is the opposite of the one Heinlein glorified in Starship Troopers – bloody, cruel and meaningless.”- Kirkus (Haldeman, book flap)
Every war rests in the hands of the soldiers that bravely march across the battle field to wipe the enemy from the face of the earth. Each solider must be trained and prepared mentally and physically to stand firm in the face of blood and death. Training takes many forms from strict rules and procedures to mass chaos. Starships Troopers demonstrated training as professionals gearing potential soldiers for war. Here the individual is completely wrapped in the fold of the army, educated in the way of war. In striking contrast is Haldeman’s future world, training is based on fear, fear of death.
“Now I’m gonna say this once so you better listen,” he growled. “We are in a combat situation here, and in a combat situation there is only one penalty for disobedience or insubordination.” He jerked the pistol from his hip and held it by the barrel, like a club. “This is an Army model 1911 automatic pistol, caliber .45, and it is a primitive but effective weapon. The Sergeant and I are authorized to use our weapons to kill to enforce discipline. Don’t make us do it because we will. We will.” (Haldeman, p. 12)
Haldeman showed the same training as useless and irrelevant and senseless. Here the army is incompetent, ignorant and scornful of its soldier’s lives. There was only two ways out of the army: either your mind snapped or you were carried out in a body bag. Morale was kept by poorly used rituals, and had no value.
“OK. Tench-hut!” We staggered upright and he looked at us expectantly.
“Fuck you, sir,” came the familiar tired chorus.
“Louder!”
“FUCK YOU, SIR!” One of the army’s less-inspired morale devices. (Haldeman, p. 4)
In the world of conditioning, the stupid and the smart have equal standing and both qualify to serve their country. Heinlein agreed with today’s recruitment campaigns that all come the army willingly, eager to serve their country. Each one may leave at any time, and forced to face the consequences. The Forever War was fought by drafted brilliant youth, the jewels of humanity, forced to fight and be killed.
“Were you in school when you got drafted?” she asked
“Yeah. Just got a degree in physics. Was going after a teacher’s certificate.”
She nodded soberly. “I was in biology . . .”
“Figures.” I ducked a handful of slush. “How far?”
“Six years, bachelor’s and technical.” She slid her boot along the ground, turning up a ridge of mud and slush the consistency of freezing ice milk. “Why the fuck did this have to happen?” (Haldeman, p.6)
“So here we were, fifty men and fifty women, with IQs over 150 and bodies of unusual health and strength, slogging elitely through the mud and slush of central Missouri.” (Haldeman, p.8)
As solider is only as good as the weapons that he is wielding, the best solider is nothing when he only wields a spade versus a child with a machine gun. The two novels both present a idea of powered armored suits. In Starship Troopers, one infantry man is an unstoppable foe with enough fire power to completely level a mountain. These exoskeleton suits made a man into a killing machine that could singlehandedly destroy any amount of opponents.
Our suits give us better eyes, better ears, stronger backs (to carry heavier weapons and more ammo), better legs, more intelligence (in the military meaning...), more firepower, greater endurance, less vulnerability.
A suit isn't a space suit - although it can serve as one. It is not primarily armor - although the Knights of the Round Table were not armored as well as we are. It isn't a tank - but a single M.I. private could take on a squadron of those things and knock them off unassisted […] Suited up, you look like a big steel gorilla, armed with gorilla-sized weapons.
The real genius in the design is that you don't have to control the suit; you just wear it, like your clothes, like skin. The secret lies in negative feedback and amplification. (Heinlein p. 97)
A weapon is only as good as the user, everyone can fire a gun, but not all can use it in war. If a solider misuses his powerful weapons he could not only kill the enemy but also his comrades. Any weapon is a ‘two-edged sword’. The Forever War vividly depicted how weapons can kill your allies as well as the enemy. Every wear of the powered amour could hurt himself and others as “it is easier for the user to kill himself through carelessness.” (Haldeman, p.14) Through physic-hypnosis the solider in The Forever War were turned into brutal savages with only one need; to kill. The urge was so great that not even their comrades came in the way of their killing spree.
Suddenly a laser flared through the Taurans from the other side, somebody missing his mark. There was a horrible scream and I looked down the line to someone […] writhing on the ground, right hand over the smoldering stump of his left arm, seared off just below the elbow. (Haldeman, p.60)
War is a terrible plague that ravages humankind since our first steps. Some wars need to be fought, while some millions died over an insult said when drunk. When mankind’s future is at stake no one hesitates to take up arms. The backdrop to Heinlein's Starship Troopers is a war between humanity and hive-minded insectoid aliens simply called “the Bugs". The ‘Bugs’ threatened every man and women in the galaxy. There was a need to fight for the homeland, to fight, kill or be killed.
It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. […] But the instinct to survive […] can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. (Heinlein, 118)
Earth’s history is blackened by periods of petty wars. These wars were where humans were sacrificed for such petty matters as a leaders honor or for the greedy of those on top. So many good men were thrown into the inferno not even knowing why they were fighting. Haldmen depicted such a raging fire in his novel The Forever War. Here “Earth’s economy needed a war, and this one was ideal. It gave a nice hole to throw buckets of money into, but would unify humanity rather than dividing it.” (Haldeman, p.215) The war against the mysterious Taurans was nothing but a huge mistake, a mistake that cost the universe millions of deaths on both sides.
“The 1143-year-long war had been begun on false pretenses and only continued because the two races were unable to communicate.
Once they could talk, the first question was “Why did you start this thing?” and the answer was “Me?”
The Taurans hadn’t known war for millennia, and toward the beginning of the twenty-first century it looked as though mankind was ready to outgrow the institution as well. But the old soldiers were still around, and many of them were in positions of power. They virtually ran the United Nations Exploratory and Colonization Group, that was taking advantage of the newly-discovered collapsar jump to explore interstellar space,
Many of the early ships met with accidents and disappeared. The ex-military men were suspicious. They armed the colonizing vessels, and the first time they met a Tauran ship, they blasted it.
They dusted off their medals and the rest was going to be history.” (Haldeman, p.214)
There is one aspect however that every military veteran will agree on, as does Robert A. Heinlein, and Joe Haldeman, that is: War is frightening. In war men become beasts, tamed humans become savages lusting for blood. War makes grown men cry like little girls, never has there been a more terribly experience for man. Rico, in Starship Troopers, felt the gripping hand of fear, every time he had a ‘drop’.
"I always get the shakes before a drop. I've had the injections, of course, and hypnotic preparation, and it stands to reason I can't really be afraid. The ship's psychiatrist has checked my brain waves and asked me silly questions while I was asleep and he tells me that it isn't fear, it isn't anything important - it's just like the trembling of an eager race horse in the starting gate.
I couldn't say about that; I've never been a race horse. But the fact is: I'm scared silly, every time." (Heinlein p. 1)
Even our hero, William Mandella, had the frits before going into combat. “Scared? Oh yes, I was scared – and who wouldn’t be? Only a fool or a suicide or a robot. Or a line officer.” (Haldeman, p.67)
My stomach flipped twice and, getting out of the chair, I had to swallow back nervous bile. I'd felt about the same, every time the speaker had crackled in the two days since the first muster. It wasn't simply the fear of going into combat - that was bad enough - but also the terrifying uncertainty of the whole thing. This could be a milk run or a suicide mission or anything in between. (Haldeman, p.73)
It can be said that the two novels Starships Troopers and The Forever War while they are similar in their overall plot, they are drastically different stories. There are obvious differences such as time dilation and totally different aliens. But it is the underlining message that makes these two novels unique. Starships Troopers glorified the war. Stating that war was necessary and it was everyone’s honor to serve. This novel represents an influential and timely message about the significance of defending the patria, the motherland, and how wars needed to be fought and what it took to become a solider and a liable citizen of a human society.
On the flip side The Forever War shows how war is useless and pointless. This novel follows the course of the training of an infantryman from civilian to officer, and through that training how he copes with an ever changing world. Due to excessive time factors associated with interstellar travel at relativistic speeds, decades past on earth while mere months pass for Mandella. Upon completing his first tour of duty, Mandella finds earth changed and for the worse. It goes into a deep analysis of social change, and the hardship one faces to catch up. While Rico in Starship Troopers remains a solider because of his love for war, Mandella returns to military duty, not because he loves it, but because its familiarity destroys the alternative.
After a thousand years Major Mandella had learned to cope.
He could cope with the savagery of the alien Taurans . . .
He could cope with the deep-sleep learning process that forced the whole of Earth’s military history into his brain . . .
He could cope with having his leg blown off and the wait for regeneration . . .
He could cope with a regiment of lesbians and homosexuals who considered him a pervert . . .
But when they sent the women he loved into the future, Major Mandella really began to wonder what he was fighting for! (Haldeman, cover)
Both novels are a fascinating read for any science-fiction fan. Similar but different they have a story that makes one think about your selves as human. If there was ever to be a competition of which novel was better, The Forever War would win hands down, due to that fact that it is not just destruction and warfare but goes into the human mind and how one must cope to survive.
“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly . . . it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. – Thomas Paine” (Heinlein, 78)
Bibliography
Haldeamn, Joe. The Forever War. 1. Toronto, Canada: Ballantine Books, 1976.
Heinlein, Robert. Starship Troopers. New York: G.P Putnam’s Sons, 1959.
Alex van der Mout
ENG 4UE
Rockland District High School
12/10/08
Empires raise and fall on the blood of young men and women. Armies of humanity have ravaged our fair world to almost the brink of disaster. Humans have perfected the art of war so that it has become second nature to us. Only in times of great distress have enemies put aside the feuding to fight a greater evil then either one of them. That greater evil can take many different forms, as can be seen in the two novels Starships Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein, and The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. Each has its’ own villainous enemies be it bugs or the alien Taurans. When one with a love for literature compares these two excellent novels, they would see that while they are similar “[Haldeman’s] war is the opposite of the one Heinlein glorified in Starship Troopers – bloody, cruel and meaningless.”- Kirkus (Haldeman, book flap)
Every war rests in the hands of the soldiers that bravely march across the battle field to wipe the enemy from the face of the earth. Each solider must be trained and prepared mentally and physically to stand firm in the face of blood and death. Training takes many forms from strict rules and procedures to mass chaos. Starships Troopers demonstrated training as professionals gearing potential soldiers for war. Here the individual is completely wrapped in the fold of the army, educated in the way of war. In striking contrast is Haldeman’s future world, training is based on fear, fear of death.
“Now I’m gonna say this once so you better listen,” he growled. “We are in a combat situation here, and in a combat situation there is only one penalty for disobedience or insubordination.” He jerked the pistol from his hip and held it by the barrel, like a club. “This is an Army model 1911 automatic pistol, caliber .45, and it is a primitive but effective weapon. The Sergeant and I are authorized to use our weapons to kill to enforce discipline. Don’t make us do it because we will. We will.” (Haldeman, p. 12)
Haldeman showed the same training as useless and irrelevant and senseless. Here the army is incompetent, ignorant and scornful of its soldier’s lives. There was only two ways out of the army: either your mind snapped or you were carried out in a body bag. Morale was kept by poorly used rituals, and had no value.
“OK. Tench-hut!” We staggered upright and he looked at us expectantly.
“Fuck you, sir,” came the familiar tired chorus.
“Louder!”
“FUCK YOU, SIR!” One of the army’s less-inspired morale devices. (Haldeman, p. 4)
In the world of conditioning, the stupid and the smart have equal standing and both qualify to serve their country. Heinlein agreed with today’s recruitment campaigns that all come the army willingly, eager to serve their country. Each one may leave at any time, and forced to face the consequences. The Forever War was fought by drafted brilliant youth, the jewels of humanity, forced to fight and be killed.
“Were you in school when you got drafted?” she asked
“Yeah. Just got a degree in physics. Was going after a teacher’s certificate.”
She nodded soberly. “I was in biology . . .”
“Figures.” I ducked a handful of slush. “How far?”
“Six years, bachelor’s and technical.” She slid her boot along the ground, turning up a ridge of mud and slush the consistency of freezing ice milk. “Why the fuck did this have to happen?” (Haldeman, p.6)
“So here we were, fifty men and fifty women, with IQs over 150 and bodies of unusual health and strength, slogging elitely through the mud and slush of central Missouri.” (Haldeman, p.8)
As solider is only as good as the weapons that he is wielding, the best solider is nothing when he only wields a spade versus a child with a machine gun. The two novels both present a idea of powered armored suits. In Starship Troopers, one infantry man is an unstoppable foe with enough fire power to completely level a mountain. These exoskeleton suits made a man into a killing machine that could singlehandedly destroy any amount of opponents.
Our suits give us better eyes, better ears, stronger backs (to carry heavier weapons and more ammo), better legs, more intelligence (in the military meaning...), more firepower, greater endurance, less vulnerability.
A suit isn't a space suit - although it can serve as one. It is not primarily armor - although the Knights of the Round Table were not armored as well as we are. It isn't a tank - but a single M.I. private could take on a squadron of those things and knock them off unassisted […] Suited up, you look like a big steel gorilla, armed with gorilla-sized weapons.
The real genius in the design is that you don't have to control the suit; you just wear it, like your clothes, like skin. The secret lies in negative feedback and amplification. (Heinlein p. 97)
A weapon is only as good as the user, everyone can fire a gun, but not all can use it in war. If a solider misuses his powerful weapons he could not only kill the enemy but also his comrades. Any weapon is a ‘two-edged sword’. The Forever War vividly depicted how weapons can kill your allies as well as the enemy. Every wear of the powered amour could hurt himself and others as “it is easier for the user to kill himself through carelessness.” (Haldeman, p.14) Through physic-hypnosis the solider in The Forever War were turned into brutal savages with only one need; to kill. The urge was so great that not even their comrades came in the way of their killing spree.
Suddenly a laser flared through the Taurans from the other side, somebody missing his mark. There was a horrible scream and I looked down the line to someone […] writhing on the ground, right hand over the smoldering stump of his left arm, seared off just below the elbow. (Haldeman, p.60)
War is a terrible plague that ravages humankind since our first steps. Some wars need to be fought, while some millions died over an insult said when drunk. When mankind’s future is at stake no one hesitates to take up arms. The backdrop to Heinlein's Starship Troopers is a war between humanity and hive-minded insectoid aliens simply called “the Bugs". The ‘Bugs’ threatened every man and women in the galaxy. There was a need to fight for the homeland, to fight, kill or be killed.
It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. […] But the instinct to survive […] can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. (Heinlein, 118)
Earth’s history is blackened by periods of petty wars. These wars were where humans were sacrificed for such petty matters as a leaders honor or for the greedy of those on top. So many good men were thrown into the inferno not even knowing why they were fighting. Haldmen depicted such a raging fire in his novel The Forever War. Here “Earth’s economy needed a war, and this one was ideal. It gave a nice hole to throw buckets of money into, but would unify humanity rather than dividing it.” (Haldeman, p.215) The war against the mysterious Taurans was nothing but a huge mistake, a mistake that cost the universe millions of deaths on both sides.
“The 1143-year-long war had been begun on false pretenses and only continued because the two races were unable to communicate.
Once they could talk, the first question was “Why did you start this thing?” and the answer was “Me?”
The Taurans hadn’t known war for millennia, and toward the beginning of the twenty-first century it looked as though mankind was ready to outgrow the institution as well. But the old soldiers were still around, and many of them were in positions of power. They virtually ran the United Nations Exploratory and Colonization Group, that was taking advantage of the newly-discovered collapsar jump to explore interstellar space,
Many of the early ships met with accidents and disappeared. The ex-military men were suspicious. They armed the colonizing vessels, and the first time they met a Tauran ship, they blasted it.
They dusted off their medals and the rest was going to be history.” (Haldeman, p.214)
There is one aspect however that every military veteran will agree on, as does Robert A. Heinlein, and Joe Haldeman, that is: War is frightening. In war men become beasts, tamed humans become savages lusting for blood. War makes grown men cry like little girls, never has there been a more terribly experience for man. Rico, in Starship Troopers, felt the gripping hand of fear, every time he had a ‘drop’.
"I always get the shakes before a drop. I've had the injections, of course, and hypnotic preparation, and it stands to reason I can't really be afraid. The ship's psychiatrist has checked my brain waves and asked me silly questions while I was asleep and he tells me that it isn't fear, it isn't anything important - it's just like the trembling of an eager race horse in the starting gate.
I couldn't say about that; I've never been a race horse. But the fact is: I'm scared silly, every time." (Heinlein p. 1)
Even our hero, William Mandella, had the frits before going into combat. “Scared? Oh yes, I was scared – and who wouldn’t be? Only a fool or a suicide or a robot. Or a line officer.” (Haldeman, p.67)
My stomach flipped twice and, getting out of the chair, I had to swallow back nervous bile. I'd felt about the same, every time the speaker had crackled in the two days since the first muster. It wasn't simply the fear of going into combat - that was bad enough - but also the terrifying uncertainty of the whole thing. This could be a milk run or a suicide mission or anything in between. (Haldeman, p.73)
It can be said that the two novels Starships Troopers and The Forever War while they are similar in their overall plot, they are drastically different stories. There are obvious differences such as time dilation and totally different aliens. But it is the underlining message that makes these two novels unique. Starships Troopers glorified the war. Stating that war was necessary and it was everyone’s honor to serve. This novel represents an influential and timely message about the significance of defending the patria, the motherland, and how wars needed to be fought and what it took to become a solider and a liable citizen of a human society.
On the flip side The Forever War shows how war is useless and pointless. This novel follows the course of the training of an infantryman from civilian to officer, and through that training how he copes with an ever changing world. Due to excessive time factors associated with interstellar travel at relativistic speeds, decades past on earth while mere months pass for Mandella. Upon completing his first tour of duty, Mandella finds earth changed and for the worse. It goes into a deep analysis of social change, and the hardship one faces to catch up. While Rico in Starship Troopers remains a solider because of his love for war, Mandella returns to military duty, not because he loves it, but because its familiarity destroys the alternative.
After a thousand years Major Mandella had learned to cope.
He could cope with the savagery of the alien Taurans . . .
He could cope with the deep-sleep learning process that forced the whole of Earth’s military history into his brain . . .
He could cope with having his leg blown off and the wait for regeneration . . .
He could cope with a regiment of lesbians and homosexuals who considered him a pervert . . .
But when they sent the women he loved into the future, Major Mandella really began to wonder what he was fighting for! (Haldeman, cover)
Both novels are a fascinating read for any science-fiction fan. Similar but different they have a story that makes one think about your selves as human. If there was ever to be a competition of which novel was better, The Forever War would win hands down, due to that fact that it is not just destruction and warfare but goes into the human mind and how one must cope to survive.
“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly . . . it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. – Thomas Paine” (Heinlein, 78)
Bibliography
Haldeamn, Joe. The Forever War. 1. Toronto, Canada: Ballantine Books, 1976.
Heinlein, Robert. Starship Troopers. New York: G.P Putnam’s Sons, 1959.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
End of Dark Knight
Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a dark knight.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Standardization Final
Argument # 2: “I trust my gentle giant, Tyson, completely."
Savard, Kelsey. "I trust my gentle giant, Tyson, completely." The Ottawa Citizen 2, Nov. 2008: A15.
7 - The ban is only is place because we have stupid and irresponsible owners
2 - A dog is a dog no matter what breed they may be
Thus
3 - A dog is what we make them, friendly or vicious, it all depends on how its raised
4 - Crack down on the owner not the dog
5 - Tyson is a gentle pit-bull breed dog
Thus
6 - I trust him completely
Therefore
1 – I’m completely outraged and terribly upset
Savard, Kelsey. "I trust my gentle giant, Tyson, completely." The Ottawa Citizen 2, Nov. 2008: A15.
7 - The ban is only is place because we have stupid and irresponsible owners
2 - A dog is a dog no matter what breed they may be
Thus
3 - A dog is what we make them, friendly or vicious, it all depends on how its raised
4 - Crack down on the owner not the dog
5 - Tyson is a gentle pit-bull breed dog
Thus
6 - I trust him completely
Therefore
1 – I’m completely outraged and terribly upset
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Categoria
Definition:
-Opening the secret wickedness of one's adversary before his face.
-reproaching a person with wickedness to his face
-Direct exposure of an adversary's faults.
Etymology:
-From the Greek, "accusation"
Also Known As:
-accusatio
My Own Examples:
An employer berating an employee in front of customer
“You stupid lazy fool, I told you to mop up this mess, you didn’t, a**hole!!!!! How many times do I have to tell you? You can’t do anything right! Well? Get moving you worthless worker!
Girlfriend breaking up with boyfriend
“You stupid, drunken, no good jerk. You sleep around with all the girls and don’t think i’ll find out. You dumb a**hole, we’re over.” (SLAPS HIM HARD)
Media Examples:
"The average American judge, as everyone knows, is a mere rabbinical automation, with no more give and take in his mind than you will find in the mind of a terrier watching a rathole."
(H. L. Mencken, "Mr. Justice Holmes")
-Opening the secret wickedness of one's adversary before his face.
-reproaching a person with wickedness to his face
-Direct exposure of an adversary's faults.
Etymology:
-From the Greek, "accusation"
Also Known As:
-accusatio
My Own Examples:
An employer berating an employee in front of customer
“You stupid lazy fool, I told you to mop up this mess, you didn’t, a**hole!!!!! How many times do I have to tell you? You can’t do anything right! Well? Get moving you worthless worker!
Girlfriend breaking up with boyfriend
“You stupid, drunken, no good jerk. You sleep around with all the girls and don’t think i’ll find out. You dumb a**hole, we’re over.” (SLAPS HIM HARD)
Media Examples:
"The average American judge, as everyone knows, is a mere rabbinical automation, with no more give and take in his mind than you will find in the mind of a terrier watching a rathole."
(H. L. Mencken, "Mr. Justice Holmes")
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Standardizing Arguments # 2
Argument # 2: “I trust my gentle giant, Tyson, completely."
Savard, Kelsey. "I trust my gentle giant, Tyson, completely." The Ottawa Citizen 2, Nov. 2008: A15.
7 - The ban is only is place because we have stupid and irresponsible owners
2 - A dog is a dog no matter what breed they may be
Thus
3 - A dog is what we make them, friendly or vicious, it all depends on how its raised
4 - Crack down on the owner not the dog
5 - Tyson is a gentle pit-bull breed dog
6 - I trust him completely
Therefore
1 – I’m completely outraged and terribly upset
Savard, Kelsey. "I trust my gentle giant, Tyson, completely." The Ottawa Citizen 2, Nov. 2008: A15.
7 - The ban is only is place because we have stupid and irresponsible owners
2 - A dog is a dog no matter what breed they may be
Thus
3 - A dog is what we make them, friendly or vicious, it all depends on how its raised
4 - Crack down on the owner not the dog
5 - Tyson is a gentle pit-bull breed dog
6 - I trust him completely
Therefore
1 – I’m completely outraged and terribly upset
Standardizing Arguments # 1
Argument # 1: “’Year of change’ coming to Afghanistan, outgoing general says”
Blackwell, Tom. "’Year of change’ coming to Afghanistan, outgoing general says." The Ottawa Citizen 2 Nov. 2008: A3.
4 - Most people don’t see the success we’ve had already
Thus
5 - Gen. David McKiernan, leader of all NATO forces in Afghanistan blames the media for the bad portrayal
3 - Increase of US troops assigned to the conflict next year will make a difference in the war.
2 - Ranking Canadian General in the country predicts so
Therefore
1 - After months of bloody insurgent attacks, the tide of the war is about to change
Blackwell, Tom. "’Year of change’ coming to Afghanistan, outgoing general says." The Ottawa Citizen 2 Nov. 2008: A3.
4 - Most people don’t see the success we’ve had already
Thus
5 - Gen. David McKiernan, leader of all NATO forces in Afghanistan blames the media for the bad portrayal
3 - Increase of US troops assigned to the conflict next year will make a difference in the war.
2 - Ranking Canadian General in the country predicts so
Therefore
1 - After months of bloody insurgent attacks, the tide of the war is about to change
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Logically Fallacy
Appeal to Fear
Syllogism:
Appeal to Fear: A specific type of appeal to emotion, the argument is made by
creating or instilling fear of the opposing party. The target
individual is persuaded to agree to your point by subtle or
obvious threats. > Example of a obvious threats: Public
executions of criminals, to put fear in the populace to not do the
same.
This is a deceptive argument, because it’s appealing to someone’s fear of the unknown, and not on facts.
Latin Name: Argumentum ad baculum, or argument based on threat. Argumentum ad metum, appeal to fear.
Fallacious:
This means of ‘reasoning’ is fallacious because rather appealing to facts of a situation; you are rather appealing to fears within a person, hoping that their fears will work in accord with your whishes.
Two of My Own Examples:
#1 – Boss talking to employee
Boss: “I know you have filled your log book for this week, but if you don’t take this extra shift you’re fired”
-Appealing to the employee’s fear of being fired, the employer ‘forces’ him
to take the extra shift.
#2 – Scare tactic
“I hope you don’t like your bike to much, because if you tell anyone, its mine.”
-Appealing to fear of loosing his bike, the target won’t tell anyone.
Media Example: Yes I Quoted STAR WARS!!!
[R2-D2 and Chewbacca are playing the holographic game aboard the Millennium Falcon]
Chewbacca: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh
C-3PO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it can't help you.
Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
Chewbacca: Grrf.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.
-Appealing to having their arms ripped out of their sockets, the two droids
let Chewie win. "Let the Wookie win" is some of the best advice given in
Star Wars. After all, it is much healthier to be a loser than to be an armless
winner.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Unbreakable
Unbreakable
Alex van der Mout
ENG 4UE
Rockland District High School
10/28/08
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Likewise the journey of a hero begins with a single act of kindness. Their journey may take years or even just days. It can lead them to unexpected places, forcing them to rub shoulders with the people they serve. Their actions may save lives, or can make them to hate the ungrateful populace pushing them towards the ‘dark side’. Throughout M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable, the archetypes used create a unique idea of one’s place in society and the actions one must go through to find it, for better or for worse.
A hero is “a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal”. (Random house) In Unbreakable, that hero is undisputed Bruce Willis’s character David Dunn. David through his many deeds of valor proved that he is able to known as a ‘hero’. Subconsciously David whishes to help, he chose to become a security guard, he chose to help others. He chose to help protect what others valued most even though what he valued most, his marriage, was in shreds. He put others before himself. Others came before his own personal safety, to such an extent that he rushed into a home to save the trapped family, even knowing that the invader had already killed the father.
David also sacrificed what he loved most, football, so that Audrey (his wife) could be happy. David did everything he could so that others, not himself, could be happy and content. David wished no harm on good people, he served to protect them. There is no question: David Dunn is the hero in Unbreakable.
On the other hand Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), is the essence of evil through the film. By his hands thousands perished due to his ill deeds. He himself purposely destroyed a plane, de-railed a train and setting fire a hotel. A villain is “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime”. (Random house) Elijah is both malicious and devoted to wickedness, by his deeds and actions it is clear that he is the villain in the movie.
Every person has a journey, or path to follow, hero or villain alike. This journey revels to one the role they are going to play on this world’s scene. This role could lead to be the cause of a thousand deaths, or to being a savior to a handful. All must take such a similar journey in a variety of degrees, there is no holding out, all must conform.
David’s journey was simple: becoming what he really was, a hero. The first steps of his journey, ironically, was not taken by himself but rather by Elijah. Without Elijah’s prompting, David would have never have questioned his unusual existence. Elijah planted the seeds of doubt in David’s head, and time made it grow. David begin to ‘learn’ his abilities, and by his son’s believe in him was able to put it towards practical usage. David’s son was prove of two things. First: we all need to believe in something or someone; we all need someone to be there for use. We all need a sturdy mountain, to keep us rooted in this hectic time. Second: we in turn need to be believed in order in to become great. How true that is! To keep ourselves sane we must believe in something that is greater then ourselves, something or someone that can and will fix all our problems. But in hand, we must be believed in, in order for us to rise to our greatest potential.
“Do you know what the scariest thing is? To not know your place in this world, to not know why you're here.” (Elijah Price, Unbreakable) Elijah’s path was altogether different from anyone else’s. From a young age Elijah had always been the social reject. Mocked and ridiculed for him being different, he was fugitively pushed into an isolated corner. Everyone in that corner has asked the questions: Why? What is my purpose for being here? Elijah was no different. His journey, his quest was to find his purpose here on Earth. Being drawn to comic books, he begin to think in line with what he read an saw. That we all have a purpose, there are always roles that we play, and guidelines that we play by. That one has to find their inner person. Elijah chose to find himself and his role in society.
Elijah’s journey made a villain out of a boy. He reasoned that if there was himself on one end of the spectrum, one that can brake with ease, there must be one on the other end, one that cannot be broken. So he set about cause deeds of destruction, trying to find that one soul survivor, one that can walk away from a crash without a scratch. He found his man, in David. As it turned out they were “on the same curve, just on opposite ends.” (Elijah Price, Unbreakable) By finding David, Elijah found himself.
“Now that we know who you are... I know who I am - I'm not a mistake! It all makes sense, in the comics you know who the arch villain is going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero! And most time's they're friends like you, and me. I should've known way back when you know why David?! Because of the kids! They called me Mr. Glass.”(Elijah Price, Unbreakable)
To find one’s place can be a long deadly road to follow. Sacrifices need to be made either on the individual or upon others. One must find his/her place and status in society in order to be a able to function as a citizen. In Unbreakable, that journey was made by both Elijah and David alike, although their paths intersected, they had different destinations. By identifying the hero and villain one can clearly see the struggles that has to be undergone. Only when we find our postion in this world, will our lives be truly complete, then a hero can be born.
“A hero is more than a person, a hero is a belief. A belief that, against impossible odds, the world can be saved—and that the world is still worth saving. Heroes inspire that belief in us. They renew our faith and give us that most precious of all gifts—hope. The world needs heroes. That's why, when a true hero arrives, the world will honor him.” (Halo 3 Commercial: "Museum")
"hero." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 25 Oct. 2008.
“Unbreakable”. M. Night Shyamalan. Touchstone Pictures, 22 November 2000.
("Museum", youtube.com . 26 Oct. 2008 . <Youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiMfG6MAOM)
"villain." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 25 Oct. 2008.
Funny Quote From Unbreakable
Joseph Dunn: Do you think you could beat up Bruce Lee?
David Dunn: No.
Joseph Dunn: I mean, if you knew karate?
David Dunn: Nope.
Joseph Dunn: What if he wasn't allowed to kick, and you were *really* mad at him?
David Dunn: No, Joseph.
David Dunn: No.
Joseph Dunn: I mean, if you knew karate?
David Dunn: Nope.
Joseph Dunn: What if he wasn't allowed to kick, and you were *really* mad at him?
David Dunn: No, Joseph.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
NEW BLOG
Hey guys, check out my new blog with my poems, well still under construction it has poems up. Leave feed back
http://av-poems.weebly.com
http://av-poems.weebly.com
Friday, October 10, 2008
Starship Troopers Outline
Starship Troopers (Robert A. Heinlein)
Alex van der Mout
Thesis: In line with Robert A. Heinlein’s ‘controversial classic of military adventure’ Starship Troopers, man is unique in that we are savages hidden under layers of conditioning, yet ‘human’ enough to stand as an united front.
Reason: Humans are savages hidden under eons of built up social conditioning, needing a set of rules to live their lives according to.
Example: “Man is what he is, a wild animal with the will to survive, and (so far) the ability, against all competition. Unless one accepts that, anything one says about morals, war, politics – you name it – is nonsense. Correct morals arise from knowing what Man is – not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be.” (Heinlein, 186)
Example: “Train up a boy in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it. – Proverbs XXII: 6” (Heinlein, 108)
Example: “He shall rule them with a rod of iron. – Revelations II: 25” (Heinlein, 41)
Example: “I do not understand objections to ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment – and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism? […] As for ‘unusual,’ punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose.” (Heinlein, 115)
Reason: Man is ruled by their false pretense of morality.
Example: “The tragic wrongness of what those well-meaning people did, contrasted with what they thought they were doing, goes very deep. They had no scientific theory of morals. They did have a theory of morals and they tired to live by it […], but their theory was wrong – half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they were, the farther it lead them astray. You see, they assumed that Man has a moral instinct. […] You have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it […]. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard swear of the mind.” (Heinlein, 117)
Example: “What is ‘moral sense’? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. […] But the instinct to survive […] can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive” (Heinlein, 118)
Example: “But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: ‘Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.’ Once you understand the problem facing the cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.” (Heinlein, 118)
Example: “The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. […] Society […] told them endlessly about their ‘rights’. The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any kind.” (Heinlein, 119)
Reason: Humans are unique in that once one of our members is in danger; all join in the ‘fight’ to save that one.
Example: “Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like this? – TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESUCE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers turn out.
Poor arithmetic . . . but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all religions, all our literature – a racial conviction that when one human needs rescue, others should not count the price.
Weakness? It might be the unique strength that wins us a galaxy.” (Heinlein, 223)
Example: “How think ye? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and go-eth into the mountains, and seek-eth that which is gone astray? – Matthew XII: 12” (Heinlein, 261)
Other:
“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly . . . it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. – Thomas Paine” (Heinlein, 78)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
