After viewing the 1931 Frankenstein movie clip “It’s Alive” and reading Mary Shelley novel I noticed there are a few differences between the two. In the movie clip Frankenstein begins his experiment by having the creature lay on a metal table. Using a harness and attached lightning bolt electric current travels throughout the lifeless body. This idea was clear, detail and scientific.  In Shelley’s book she describes the scene by collecting instructions that helped “infuse spark”into the veins of the lifeless creature.  In this experiment, I definitely think Shelley should have taken a different approach because she’s lacking an enormous amount of detail when describing the scene.

Sayhonara Gonzalez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcJwt8XB4M

The Discourse on Method by René Descartes is a book that transformed the way people think. The phrase “Cogito ergo sum,” or meaning, “I think, therefore I am” brings a new understanding of the way we interpret knowledge. “I think therefore I am,” gives light on the idea that if you’re thinking, then you exist. If you doubt then you exist also, because to doubt something you must exist. Descartes is giving reason to prove that existence is life. He is trying to explain a “mind-body problem” where the mind and the body are separate from each other and all things physical are all in the mind and can be understood by the soul if they truly exist.

Descartes agrees that it is not easy to evaluate all knowledge; “ I would not even have desired to begin by entirely rejecting any of the opinions which had formerly been able to slip into my belief without being introduced there by reason…”(Norton, 22) He is saying that in his evaluation to become capable of understanding everything, he must forget all opinions that he has had until they are proven to be true and reasonable. He must doubt everything he knows, to find the real reason they are the truth, and with his ability to think and prove, he is ensuring that he exists. He puts into place four methods that he will follow before he is to be given reason to believe that things are true and can be knowledge.

While reading The Discourse on Method, at many points during my reading I began to become frustrated. I was frustrated with the language and grammar it was written in, I was also frustrated that I could not understand multiple sentences the first time around and needed to continue to look more closely at what Descartes was saying and try better to understand him. While I was doing this, I realized that I am in the situation being described in this piece. The reading evolved me to realize exactly what I believe he was saying. The ability of understanding knowledge for what it is first comes with understanding why you are able to understand these facts. Unlike mathematics, which has proven final answers discovered by mathematicians, other subjects such as logic must be understood as “truthful” to be stored as knowledge. And to understand them as the truth, you must first prove why you are able to believe in them. The mere fact that I am thinking about what Descartes was saying in his book proves that I exist in my mind as well.

The idea of “I think, therefore I am” seems so simple to understand, however to attempt and look at it in a logical view makes the idea seem abstract from one persons regular way of thinking; To truly understand something you must forget everything you already know.

Discourse on Method

“But on examining them I noticed the syllogism of logic and the greater part of the rest of its teachings serve rather than explaining to other people the things we already know or even like the art of Lully, for speaking without judgement of the things we know not, than for instructing us of them”(Descartes). Descartes begins to explain the use of syllogism to logic, he uses the example of “I think therefore I am.” Descartes explains he exist in life because he was thinking and doubting. Doubting the truth of things was the reason why Descartes couldn’t doubt he was alive. Descartes also uses the idea of god as his existence. He exists because there is a god who is a higher power and is perfect that has created him.

Descartes provides four rules that he states to follow for logic. The first rule begins with the idea that we must first doubt everything to discover what is really real. We should only hold things true where no one can question what you believe is true. Questions ideas that you do not think yourself is true therefore it could be held further that it is wrong or if it is real there could be something learned. Descartes explains there is “no greater perfection than to doubt” from this idea without doubt we can not come to what is real. Descartes believes the idea of doubting as one of the greatest power that he holds.

Second, problems should not be attacked as a whole, but as an individual problem solved bit by bit. Descartes said this because “although they contain many very true very good precepts, there are always so many others mingled therewith that it is almost as difficult to separate them as to extract them” (Descartes). The end results of the problem would be more efficient and more desirable.Next, Begin with the things that we know are true and build on from those ideas in order to finalize and state what is real and why it is real. Again, this brings in the idea of syllogism where we begin by what is held true and we build upon it. Last, breaking everything down to the smallest details and leave nothing out where everything can be doubted. Do not ignore any questions you have and have no bias towards any ideas.

From this piece of writing I learned that we should look at ideas, objects and things that we think exist beyond their meanings. For example, instead of looking at just the table and just saying it exist because it is there. We need to look at the features one by one and break it down to give the tables its meaning and existence. Like table exist because it is made out of wood and there are drawers and handles at the drawer. I believe that we look at the world as a materialistic life than of its real value and the existence of the materials.

Works Cited:

Wilkie, Brian, and James Hurt. “Discourse On Method.” Literature of the Western World. 5th ed. Vol. 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. 405-08. Print.

“I think therefore I am.”

There are countless questions we contemplate on a daily basis. Why am I doing this? What is love? What’s for dinner?  These inquiries, although ranging in scope and seriousness, are proof that we think and wonder, but does that truly define existence? In The Discourse on Method, Descartes explores what it actually means to be alive. He thinks about his physical body, his thoughts, his dreams, and concludes that “I think therefore I am.” It is interesting to consider what it really means to live, and what defines existing in particular. I find Descartes’ piece of writing quite unique and enticing because it is laced with contradictions, yet these don’t interfere with my comprehension of the piece, but rather encourage me to think deeper. For instance, on the one hand Descartes is contemplating faith and the existence of a higher power, while on the other he is more assuredly stating that God, as a higher being, created us and gave us the ability to think. It is fascinating to watch the narrator’s contradictory dialogue go on as he grapples with what it means to human.

I have never particularly concentrated on the question of what makes us living, or what makes us human. Therefore, to see Descartes devote so much thought and writing to this inquiry seemed silly at first, but the piece is definitely not light-hearted or comical. It’s a serious dialogue within a person, which makes the writing that much more powerful. Since he is writing about how we think as a race and what it means that we are humans with thoughts, it makes sense to read paragraph upon paragraph of a person trying to handle and comprehend the things on his mind. “I observed that while I thus desired everything to be false, I, who thought, must of necessity be something,” Descartes concludes, for if everything around him is not definite, at least his own being must be definite, since he is thinking. Therefore, arises the statement, “I think therefore I am.” Although I do see the logic that he followed in arriving at this conclusion, I am still skeptical about its exclusivity, specifically pertaining to other things around us. Is the only way to prove something’s existence by showing it has thoughts, or is it through my own thoughts that I give life to concepts around me?

Although I come away from The Discourse on Method with plenty of questions, in some sense Descartes has done his job. “Reflecting upon the fact that I doubted, and that in consequence my being was not quite perfect (for I saw clearly that to know was a greater perfection than to doubt),” Descartes states, as he concludes that there are many things we humans do not know, therefore there must be a perfect being, God, who created us all. I find this ending impactful in many ways. Descartes tactfully leads us to the notion of a perfect greater power who created us all, yet also emphasizes that there is little any of us know definitively. This once more drives home the concept of existing simply because we think, since there are countless ideas, tangible and intangible, which we each contemplate on a daily basis. I come away from this piece puzzled, and that is not a bad thing, for in this way I know I am human.

Source:

Puchner, Martin, Suzanne Conklin. Akbari, Wiebke Denecke, and Barbara Fuchs. “From The Discourse on Method.” The Norton Anthology of Western Literature. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014. p. 22-25. Print.

For this assignment, I am to describe what makes a great work for me. The way I see it, there are several dimension to a particular work. These dimension include contextual, emotional, and philosophical. A great work of literature would touch upon, and have a message regarding all of these dimensions. My explanation of a great work would be better understood with a work that I consider being great, it was an exhibition in the Museum of Modern Arts (MoMA) called “Untitled 1989.”I believe this work includes all the characteristics that discuss each of the dimensions.

Before I explain how this exhibition demonstrates a great work, I will explain what this exhibition consists of. There is a mid-sized room with a wedding dress, cat litter across the perimeter, and yellow wallpaper. Upon a closer look at the wallpaper, one can see a pattern of 2 drawings. The first drawing shows a black person is being lynch, and the other drawing where a white male is sleeping.

Every great work will provide some information of the context of time period it depicts. For example, the drawings in the wallpaper of the Black male being lynched tells us that the exhibitor wants us to think about he societal context of it. The fact that the second picture of the White male sleeping tells us that there is a social injustice theme to it. Perhaps this wallpaper wants us to think of the Jim Crow era when the Blacks were unfairly treated and were deprived of some the basic rights (in this case Right to Life.)

This exhibition also shows how the emotion of the person sleeping in the background wallpaper is suppressed despite the social injustice committed around him. So in this case, it is absence of any emotion rather, that the exhibitor wants us to think about. If this exhibition is interpreted this way, I am sure that the audience will make similar connection with our current situations. Are there any social injustices that are happening today that we deliberately ignore in order to go about our lives? Even if the wallpaper is not interpreted this way, the audience will have emotions to the wedding dress that is placed in the middle of the room.  Given that there is spotlight in the dress, it will invoke feelings that we associate with a marriage, such as joy, happiness, love etc. These feelings will eventually turn sour when the audience focuses on the wallpaper, which is rather grim.

The final dimension that I think this exhibition discusses is philosophical. Each of the objects in this exhibition shows something that has societal meaning to us even today.  By putting these drawings onto endlessly repeating pattern, the artist made an attempt to say, that this was not an isolated event and that in some ways, has become our country’s background. The sculpture of the empty wedding dress is a vase waiting to be filled. It represents the supposed white purity that often triggered or justified the violence depicted on the walls. It also represents a vessel that is ready to be filled with all of the optimistic hopes and dreams of marriage. And to many Americans, Gay Americans, it is a reminder of equality denied.

The sculptures of bags of cat litter are the link between the sadistic imagery and the wedding dress. Cat litter is said to both absorb the stench of excrement in this case being the wallpaper whilst allowing for domestic comfort. This may be similar to the narrow mindedness that many of us have when dealing with various racial groups.

In conclusion, a great work for me is one that discusses an issue or has a theme in three main dimensions, contextual, emotional, and philosophical.

When it comes to literature, the “typical” great work has a rather predictable anatomy. An author currently dead and very acclaimed probably penned it. He did so during one of those lofty historical times we now christen the Classical period, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment. Perhaps it could be during the modern era, too, in which case the author should have garnered a Pulitzer or a Nobel Prize. The great work muses about the meaning of life and human nature, in the most roundabout way. The harder to discern the greater the great work is. Only scientists state their conclusions in an obvious manner; the great work better be subtle. The great work is something you reverently bind in mahogany-colored leather, study in school and quote often.

At least that is what I used to think before I read anything with which I would develop a personal connection. If my memory is not tricking me, two volumes are fighting for the title. The two works that I can truly call great because I felt moved by them as a kid in one of the early grades of elementary school in rural Poland are the Bible and a short novel by Roman Pisarski, never translated into English, About the Dog Who Rode the Train. These two unlikely companions are both great works to me, despite one having a huge impact on the Western civilization and the other being a relatively irrelevant story written from the point of view of a dog (although after some further thought, it was much like Jack London’s The Call of the Wild; maybe it was objectively speaking a great work after all).

I was exposed to the stories from the Bible everywhere: at home, in church, even in the public, but not secular, school. But that’s not what made it important. Rather, it was the first work of literature that made me wonder, ask and doubt. “Grandma, but why did they do that, couldn’t they just ask god to…?” As for About the Dog Who Rode the Train, it made me cry when the narrator-dog died crushed by a cargo train. It made me sensitive to the pain of those who normally do not have a voice. Only a great work could accomplish that, even if I was only eight years old and highly impressionable at the time of reading it.

It seems to me that anything can be considered a great work; it just depends on who is judging. When a work of literature allows someone to feel, understand, or experience something he or she would otherwise not have – why would the work not deserve to be called great? Anything can be a great work to the right audience. Sure, some extent of universal appeal, a universal message, a theme that can remain relevant in different times, places, and cultures (which I would have to admit would most likely be those musings about identity, life, meaning, etc.) are often the qualities found in a great work. But before it is all that, it has to be stirring, profound, evoking emotion and thought. Basically it should not leave you the same after you read it.

Great Works of literature are pieces that make you feel. They are relatable, not necessarily because we have experienced exactly what the narrator is saying, but rather because we understand what the author is depicting and it strikes a chord inside of us. Whether through beautiful fiction like The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, or through more reality-based nonfiction essays, the piece describes something, perhaps even quite basic, in a way that we have never thought about it before. It is the wording on the pages that captivates and entices, that makes us finish a book, and tell everyone about it, not allowing its words to escape our essence.

For me, one of these Great Works is Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. What’s interesting about this novel is that it’s written through the voice of a 9-year old narrator named Oskar. The boy spends pages upon pages trying to uncover more about how exactly his father passed away on 9/11 due to the tragedy in NYC, and tries to reconstruct what his father has left behind. The boy has evidently been left saddened due to such a misfortune, and is a character who cannot stop thinking and thinking about everything around him. Oskar questions the world in ways that most 9-year olds would not, yet it is understandable that the death of his father has had an unresolved, profound impact on him. Interestingly, this book was relatable because of the distinctive manner in which Oskar questions his surroundings, as he tries to make sense of the world he lives in. It is exhilarating, exciting, saddening, confusing and beautiful to follow his story as he pieces together what is left of his father.

One relates to all the moments of discovery this boy experiences, as he learns what it’s like to be human, to think, to live, to love, and to deal with loss. Thus, it is impossible not to feel discouraged when Oskar questions why we have so many thoughts, “What did thinking ever do for me, to what great place did thinking ever bring me? I think and think and think. I’ve thought myself out of happiness one million times, but never once into it.” This sensation that he describes of overthinking situations is extremely common in life, and watching a young boy struggle with this makes us sympathize with the narrator that much more. Throughout Oskar’s journey, as he tries to make sense of some artifacts that his father left behind, he also meets a variety of characters that help him learn about love and life. By interacting with all these new people, he gets to see many different lifestyles and makes notable observations, wording them in ways that hit home with so many readers life experiences, “She wants to know if I love her, that’s all anyone wants from anyone else, not love itself but the knowledge that love is there, like new batteries in the flashlight in the emergency kit in the hall closet.” This last quote in particular displays why I adore the work of Jonathan Safran Foer. I am enamored with his ability to capture commonplace occurrences or desires, such as the want to be loved, and phrase them in ways that bring clarity and understanding to our own experiences.

Overall, this piece is evidently one that makes me feel. It is a gut-wrenching novel that takes the reader on a roller coaster ride of emotions, yet it is so worth it. When one finishes reading, they cannot shake the insight, the wording, and the questions that riddled every page, formulated, quite unbelievably, by a 9 year old narrator. It is a beautifully told tale of a boy searching, searching, searching… so relatable because aren’t we all looking for something? For keys, for friends, for lovers, but mainly for ourselves. Therefore, this piece is encaptivating, relatable and beautifully written; all aspects that I believe Great Works must possess to be truly brilliant.

Sources:

Foer, Jonathan Safran. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. Boston, MA: Mariner, 2005.