Best Friends

Understanding has many friends. She isn’t a social butterfly, but everyone loves when she speaks. Her words are thought by most to be soothing in an incomparable and unique way. She isn’t loud, she isn’t quiet, and she is easy to overlook, except when people need someone to talk to; she is the first person that anyone can think to go to when they have a problem or are troubled by something. Her words work magic on peoples’ moods, and her ability to make deep connections in short amounts of time accounts for the fact that everyone considers her a friend.

Understanding has a best friend named Persuasive. Persuasive is very much like understanding in that he can make deep connections very quick too, however Persuasive is much more outgoing. People are fond of Persuasive. Persuasive is the coolest, most influential kid in their high school. Persuasive starts all the trends, styles, and fashions, and everyone else follows. He is a student who, despite never doing any homework or studying, gets straight A’s. His teachers appear to love him and love to treat him well, but at the end of the day the teachers question the grades they give Persuasive, but the minute they see him the next day all questioning is sidelined to Persuasive’s smooth, easy, intelligent speaking that makes the teachers believe he is the most likely to succeed in life.

Q4 in process #2

            For my fourth quarter independent reading book, I chose a book by Richard Dawkins, an author of books that I have read before. Dawkins is an opinionated man, and this is never truer than in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. In this book, Dawkins presents the evidence for the theory of evolution, the biological theory for the origin of life that was first proposed by Charles Darwin. Dawkins’ goal with this book is to convince super religious people, whom he calls “ridiculous” and “ignorant,” that evolution is how life came about, and not by God 6000 years ago. I think that Dawkins is the ridiculous one for thinking that this strategy would work.

            In our world, science is black and white. Ideas, theories, hypotheses, they are all either correct or incorrect; anything less than correct is not good enough to a scientist. This helps explain the workings of Dawkins’ mind, who is a true scientist at heart, but this works against him when he tries to convey science to the public. There is a conflict here between the black and white nature of science and the way people debate issues in their minds. A regular, non-scientist person’s set of beliefs is not the product of a black and white, impartial, objective evaluator of the evidence available. Instead, people form their views from what other people tell them, how other people tell them, what makes more sense, and what other people believe. While Dawkins is putting a lot of effort into clarifying why evolution makes the most sense, the way that Dawkins is telling this to people is downright insulting. A religious person reading this book might put it down after the first chapter because Dawkins compares people who do not believe in evolution to people who deny the holocaust, saying, “the evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust” (Dawkins 7). The holocaust is one of the most serious faults in human action in history, and to throw the word at the people he wants to communicate with is evidence of one of three things: Dawkins is childish and wants to insult people who don’t agree with him; Dawkins wants to make clear how strong his stance is; or Dawkins does not know how to communicate. I doubt the first one given that Dawkins is a professional, but the last two go hand in hand. Dawkins is making clear his stance, but is overdoing it.

            I think an important idea that I have taken out of this book is this idea of effective communication. It isn’t the focus of the book, or even anything that Dawkins talks about beyond saying that evolution needs to be more clear to everyone, but it is an idea that is central to the success of this book and any other books that are trying to entertain a certain audience of a new or disputed idea. This book is the case in point of why this idea is so important: all the thorough science and logical reasoning in it might have been wasted at the hands of poor communication.

Q4 in process #1

I am reading The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution written by Richard Dawkins. This is a book about science, which is why I chose it. I am more partial to science than any other subject, so reading it is easiest and most enjoyable for me. It is a different type of thinking involved than when reading literature. The arguments are more straightforward and I understand them in much less time than in literature. This book goes back to one of the most basic ideas in biology in order to prove its validity, which is necessary since this idea, the theory of evolution, is under much scrutiny, in America more than other places.

Dawkins begins by saying that there is a lot of evidence for evolution, and yet many people deny it. He goes on in the first chapter, ridiculing people who deny evolution as ignorant and blind to the evidence he is about to present. I’m not sure why he would say this, but then Dawkins dives into the science. He presents examples of evolution that have occurred before our eyes, one being the case of dogs. Dogs started out as Canis lupus, better known as wolves, and then through breeding and domestication evolved into “the two hundred or so breeds of dogs” (Dawkins 15). The diversity of these breeds after just a few thousand years exemplifies the drastic changes that evolution can effect on a species. Similar scientific arguments are made throughout the book to prove different aspects of evidence for evolution, such as proving the age of the Earth, how small evolutionary changes add up to become big changes over time, how missing links are nonexistent, and how the change in complexity from a single cell to a human being is possible (“you did it yourself in nine months”) (Dawkins 100). Dawkins is thorough and convincing, but many times I wanted to put the book down because his arguments became repetitive and were not organized in any clear way. He would pick apart an issue and then say “so this means evolution is true,” and even if that is the logical conclusion of each argument, nobody wants to hear that phrase a thousand times. If it wasn’t convincing the first 999 times, the thousandth is superfluous.

After reading this book, I felt convinced, but I just did not care anymore. Evolution seemed boring and not like an important issue. So, needless to say, it isn’t something I would like to further investigate. However, there are many other ideas presented in this book that sparked my interest, such as the conflict between science and religion in our world, and the way that people are affected by the disbelief in science that is prevalent in America. In the first chapter, Dawkins says that most powerful religious people do believe in evolution, and that it is the uninformed people who do not believe it. This means that there is an issue of education, and I might want to look into this general topic area more.

Why does Homer care about fate anyway?

            In my second blog post, I dabbled with the role of fate and determinism in The Iliad by Homer. I discussed the free will of men and gods, and the circumstances that allowed for each. Upon further tinkering with this idea, I concluded that the message that Homer wants to convey to his readers about the real world is this: Although things are predetermined and their outcomes cannot be avoided, there is no reason for people not to act as though they have autonomy. People’s actions are still necessary for the world to continue turning. Clearly, this message makes an assumption that would be hotly contested by philosophers of modern times, but the belief that everything is fated was prevalent during the times of Homer.

            To reach this message, one must first visit the plot of Achilles. Achilles is the Achaeans’ best fighter, a true hero. However, when Agamemnon attempted to steal Briseis from him in a fit of rage, Achilles withdrew himself from the ranks of warriors and refused to partake in any battles. Achilles tells Atrides “back I go to Phthia. Better that way by far, to journey home in the beaked ships of war. I have no mind to linger here disgraced, brimming your cup and piling up your plunder” (Homer 83). Since Achilles has decided he will not fight, the Achaean forces are deeply weakened. The gods begin to take sides in the battle: “those two goddesses there are Menelaus’ best defense, Hera of Argos, Boeotian Athena, guard of armies… but Aphrodite here with her everlasting laughter always stands by Paris” (Homer 145). This shows that without the direct involvement of Achilles in the War, the outcome of the war becomes jeopardized and the gods intervene. The gods eventually maintain the fate of the War in the favor of the Achaeans. However, since Achilles decided not to fight and thus had no influence on the war, this took considerable effort.

            Homer conveys the theme that free will still exists in a deterministic world through both the inaction of Achilles and the actions of every other character. To maintain the golden balance of fate, everybody but Achilles played their part: Thetis tried to sooth Achilles; “Hera trumpeted, lashing the nerve and fighting-fury in each man as Athena, her eyes blazing, made for Diomedes” and she “urged him on with so much winning force” (Homer 190). The men themselves who fought the war needed to fight for victory to be had. Eventually, Achilles returns to battle and wins the war for Achaea. These examples do not even begin to represent every forward action taken. The point of all this is that even though fate dictated that Troy must fall at the hands of Achaea, it would never have happened without the comprehensive and total participation of the individuals; the free will of the characters, who chose to fight for a cause, was the reason fate held true. This thinking allowed me to arrive at a theme, a message that Homer is trying to send his readers. This message is that no matter what is fated, people still have the ability to freely make decisions, and the meaning of these decisions is not lost because of a deterministic world.

As I read this epic poem, I tried to keep my list of what good readers do handy so that I could employ some of my new strategies. One strategy I used is rereading. When I thought I found a quote for these blog posts, I reread the entire chapter I found it in so that I might gain more insight into the meaning of the quote. I used a quote in my third blog post from page 605, where Achilles cries with Priam. My first time reading this chapter, I only noticed that this was the first true display of emotion for anyone but Patroclus Achilles shows in the entire story. However, on my second time through I made the connection that this strong emotional side to Achilles was probably something very valued in Homer’s culture. This leads to how I read with my spine throughout this book. For me, I allowed my initial reactions to certain events dictate how I perceive them. The emotional scene I mentioned before, for example, made me feel like Homer exalted Achilles for having such strong emotions underneath his tough exterior.

            I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all readers. If you can read these words, you should read this work of art. If you, reader, would like to understand more allusions in novels and find deeper meaning in any future works of literature you read, I implore you to read The Iliad. Every author who has ever written anything of worth has read Homer at some point; it shows up in their writing. Homer has been read for centuries, and The Iliad will remain a famous and historical epic poem for longer than can be predicted. If you read The Iliad, then the next time you read about a character being compared to the Trojan Hector or the beautiful Helen the meaning of those words will not be lost; the newer work might carry a whole new message, a heavier message, and the result will surprise you.

            

Achilles: a Platonic ideal

Chapters read: 1-24

Pages read: up to 615

            In The Iliad by the Greek poet Homer, Achilles is, undoubtedly, the center of the story. Even with the dozens of other main characters, the outcome of the novel is ultimately hinged upon the return of Achilles to the battlefield. Even though the fate of the city was determined, there always seemed to be two possible outcomes for Achilles. He summarizes what the sea-goddess told him earlier: “Mother tells me, the immortal goddess Thetis with her glistening feet, that two fates bear me on to the day of death. If I hold out here and I lay siege to Troy, my journey home is gone, but my glory never dies. If I voyage back to the fatherland I love, my pride, my glory dies” (Homer 265). Returning to the discussion about fate in my last post, Achilles appears to be in control of his own fate, a unique situation. Homer probably did this to exemplify Achilles’ superiority among men, and his almost godlike existence. After all, the future of an entire war lay in his hands, a privilege normally only possessed by the gods.

            More than just the privileges that Achilles held set him apart from all other men. Achilles’ goodness and strength of character were incredible. Other men, such as Agamemnon, were not nearly as honorable as Achilles. Atrides (Agamemnon) was overly confident and emotional, especially when he was forced to give up his wife Chryseis and he told his best fighter, Achilles, “Desert, by all means—if the spirit drives you home! I will never beg you to stay, not on my account… I hate you most of all the warlords… What if you are a great soldier? That’s just a gift of god” (Homer 83). Clearly, king Agamemnon’s very understandable, but very negative human qualities reveal that he is not the perfection of a man that Achilles is.

Even compared to gods, Achilles’ character seemed to be less flawed. The gods were often tricksters: when Hera wanted to support the cause of the Achaeans, she went through with a plan to “dress in all her glory and go to Ida—perhaps the old desire would overwhelm the king to lie by her naked body and make immortal love and she might drift an oblivious, soft warm sleep across his eyes and numb that seething brain,” after which she could intervene in the Trojan War as she pleased (Homer 375). This type of deception was not something Achilles engaged in.

Most importantly about Achilles, I would say, is his ability to show new sides of himself. Throughout The Iliad, Achilles is a hard warrior who rarely expresses emotion except for the loss of his beloved friend Patroclus. However, when Priam, king of Troy came to Achilles’ tent to beg for his son Hector’s body back and to tell Achilles to think of how important he is to his father, Achilles got “a deep desire to grieve for his own father…overpowered by memory both men gave way to grief. Priam wept freely for man-killing Hector, throbbing…as Achilles wept himself, now for his father, now for Patroclus once again” (Homer 605). This incredible display of emotion from Achilles’ completes his personality as an embodiment of what ancient Greeks thought was the perfect human being; he was compassionate, strong, honest, and level-headed. According to the philosophy of Plato, Achilles could be seen as a Platonic ideal of a human.

Here is the wikipedia article about platonic idealism.

The role of fate in The Iliad

Chapters read: 1-16

Pages read: up to 441

            The Iliad by Homer is millennia old. In the time that this epic poem was written, the belief that everything in the world had an immutable fate was widespread. The influence that this belief has on The Iliad is clear; fate is one of the major governing forces of events in this novel.

Even the gods bow down to the supremacy of fate. For example, when Zeus realizes that Hera has helped the Achaeans while he slept, Zeus is angry for Hera’s deceit but not for the outcome of her actions because, as Zeus says, “back the fighting goes, no stopping it, ever, all the way till Achaean armies seize the beetling heights of Troy through Athena’s grand design” (Homer 389-390). It seems that the gods, however, might be the ones who create fate in the first place. Even so, they enforce their own rules on the mortal world with rigid governance.

It is also possible that some instances of fate are not in the gods’ hands. At some point during the war, “Zeus held out his sacred golden scales: in them he placed two fates of death that lays men low—one for Trojan horsemen, one for Argives armed in bronze… and down went Achaea’s day of doom, Achaea’s fate settling down on the earth that feeds us all as the fate of Troy went lifting towards the sky” (Homer 233-234). This suggests that Zeus’s will does not control fate, but rather it enforces a fate that is intricately embedded in events of the mortal and immortal world.

Fate may not be as immutable as thought in some cases. This argument brings into question the idea of free will, or the ability for characters to make decisions entirely on their own, outside the influence of fate, so that their decisions may go against and even alter whatever fate was said to exist. The Trojan Sarpedon, a son of Zeus, proclaimed to his men “But now, as it is, the fates of death await us, thousands posed to strike, and not a man alive can flee them or escape—so in we go for attack! Give our enemy glory or win it for ourselves!” (Homer 335-336). Here Sarpedon succumbs to the fate of death that awaits him, but does not believe any outside forces can determine who leaves the battle with glory and honor. The free will of the Trojans, in their minds, allows their own actions to dictate how much honor they have when their time of death comes. In other words, fate does not provide a detailed map of everyone’s lives.

As powerful as fate is, its influence appears to fluctuate in The Iliad. Not even the poet Homer understands fate completely. Nor do the gods or any of the mortals in the epic poem. Instead, the assumption is that fate will always play a role, but this does not stop the characters from trying to effect their own preferred outcomes.