What Defines US?

In his essay, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels makes some interesting arguments against this influential theory. He ultimately says that this idea cannot be held as true because societies can be factually wrong about information; he uses the example of societies that regard the Earth as flat. However, he does welcome Cultural Relativism for its appreciation of other cultures and because it makes people question the validity of their own country’s actions. I enjoyed the essay because he was capable of asserting two sides of an argument in a convincing and thorough manner. Although, I would challenge his idea that there are certain ethical wrongs that should not be practiced in any society. He used the example of slavery to defend his point. While I believe slavery to be immoral, inhumane, and unethical, who’s to say that it actually is? It is Rachels’ own belief and the general trend of Western modern culture to condemn the practice of slavery, three hundred years ago it was practiced around the world without the ethical restraint. It seems as though Rachels is esteeming his own belief to be superior to that of Pakistanis or Haitians who still practice Slavery in their countries. Overall this essay provided a lot of insight on a topic that many Americans struggle with.

This essay reminded me of Waiting for Godot because it challenges people’s motivations for progress and made me think of my own importance to the rest of the world. In Waiting for Godot both Vladimir and Estragon frequently question the purpose of their lives and why they are waiting for Godot. The essay similarly queries why people feel the need to better their own society if they already feel that it is greater than every other culture. Both the essay and the play made me feel very trivial and insignificant. The play accomplished this through examining the importance of anything in life. If time, success, love, and happiness are all constructs of humanity than what is there to life? If we cannot quantify, calculate, or hold something in a tangible form, then is it real? Consequently, as the essay explains, our abstract conception of what makes humans humane is dependent on the society that you were raised in. The success and happiness that I’m living for would be redefined if I were reared in another country, then what am I? Am I Hannah because I’m American? As Psychology states, we are all the combination of nurture and nature so then, does this mean I am the combination of my society and my parents? Is that my identity? Who am I? What am I?

America asserts their dominant culture in the Middle East but presents it as social liberation to justify a cruel and bloody war. We enter with promise of freedom, and maybe a little revenge, but we promise that we are doing this for the Iraqi People. The Pakistani People. The Irani People. We aren’t doing this for Oil. For Money. And of course not for Greed. We are democracy, whether the citizens of these countries want it or not. America believes so strongly that our culture is better that we are risking the lives of Middle Eastern and American people to spread our ideas. Our desire for money is so profound that we have spent over ten years involved in an area that wants nothing to do with us.

Amor, Liebe ist, is Love.

The novel Wuthering Heights may not have been the easiest novel for me to get through, but it did succeed in changing my perception of romance and relationships and I am glad that I could obtain something substantial from the story. It ultimately taught me that there is no singular way to love someone and that no two couple is exactly the same. While Heathcliff and Catherine's relationship is not particularly appealing to me, they did undoubtedly love one another and in their own warped way, they made each other happy. I think today, couples are more focused on their appearance to society and how happy they seem to make each other which overshadows their true feelings, leading to an increase in divorce. If Heathcliff and Catherine did end up together, I certainly do not think that they would ever be parted. The divorce rate in America is at an all time high at around 40%-50% and I think this figure certainly supports the idea that couples are getting married without realizing the sacrifice they are making.
Being a seventeen year-old high school student, I am by no means insinuating that I understand the hardships of marriage, but I feel that this divorce rate predicts a sad future for the United States. Heathcliff and Catherine may not have had the ideal romance but at least they were committed to each other, even after death. I think that this kind of love is rare and should be appreciated for its dedication. It does not matter how grotesque or unappealing a relationship appears to the outside world, if two people find a way to hold on to their love then they have every right to pursue it. The controversial topic of gay marriage has been in the news a lot recently and it's upsetting to me that we can live in a society that does not appreciate all forms of love; a society that would allow a straight man or woman divorce and remarry five times but not two homosexuals consecrate their love once. The government should not have the right to dictate whose love is legal or legitimate. Love is love, whether it is between Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Ophelia, Jayne Eyre and Rochester, or Heathcliff and Catherine. Humans have no right to judge the happiness of others if it does not inflict pain on anyone else.

Why Challenge Our Predestination?

                In Oedipus the King, Oedipus challenges his fate and tries to escape the binding prophecies of the Oracles that warn him that he is destined to murder his father and marry his mother; how relatable is Oedipus to any of us? This question was brought up in class and it made me consider how psychologically related human beings are, even across thousands of years. The concept of fate still lingers in our minds as we make large decisions that could be permanently life changing or even small decisions that will are so insubstantial that they will flit from our heads immediately after processing them. Oedipus’ life, similar to our own, is composed of a multitude and small, intermediate, and large choices that all ultimately lead him to the Oracles’ prophecies coming true despite his desperate attempts at fleeing.  When confined to a certain path for our lives, do we still tend to deviate from the road ahead? Personally, the idea of a set fate is much too constricting for me to mentally process, and I would be just as anxious as Oedipus to escape my fated prison. Prince Harry of Wales has been prestigiously raised among royalty with impressive erudition and esteemed company, then why did he grow to be such an extravagant partier and unorthodox Prince? Perhaps, his fate, the legacy of the crown, was too much for him and he wanted to escape that course, similar to Oedipus, to avoid the possibility of disappointing the millions of people admiring him. The concept of murdering your father and marrying your mother may not be relatable, but the fundamental idea of avoiding your fate may not be far from how humans live their lives today.

                We also see confined women in the Middle East challenge their fate. These women are destined to be subservient to abusive men, but are finally joining together to show a glimpse of a gender revolution. They are testing their fate by speaking up about their need for respect and protection for their dignity. By growing up in this society they are predestined to serve men as if they are genetically modified to be their inferiors, however now they are showing a resistance to their previously weak future. Oedipus was striving to do what he thought was right. He knew that murdering his father and marrying his mother were despicable acts and sought to remove himself from the situation to protect this name and the futures of his children, but with the intervention of the gods, he never had much of a chance. Americans do not live in a society as predetermined and rigid as the Ancient Greeks’, but there are still cultures that use ancestral identity to measure the worth of an individual. The English Monarchy, although it no longer holds much power in the English Parliament or Government at present, is still determined by lineage, not merit. People endeavor to challenge their fate.

                Psychologically we are still similar to Oedipus and his strife. I disagree with Freud in that this connection is in our latent desire to replace our father or mother to take their place with their spouse as described in his Oedipus or Electra Complexes. I think that humans are biologically driven to find control. If we lack freedom, we search for it. If we have freedom, then we become more ambitious and search for power. Humans want to feel in control of their future, which is why fate even interests us. The question of fate is unanswerable, and humans cannot have control of that.

What is Freedom?

I believe that the Socratic Seminar question number 20 is a crucial element in understanding Ayn Rand's ideals in The Fountainhead. What is freedom to Howard Roark? Roark is an interesting literary hero because of his quest for complete independence and self-reliance. He is not likeable or charismatic in a way that appeals to the general populace and he finds comfort in solitude. He disagrees with the media in regards to the way Gail Wynand presents it and the way Ellsworth Toohey manipulates it. His success is hindered by his inability to compromise and he rarely obtains big architectural projects. So, the question is: is this freedom? Roark's egotistical and provincial perspective in life could be what Ayn Rand defines as liberation. This directly relates to the Syrian issue today. After the Syrian government deployed chemical weapons on the rebels the United States ultimately chose the unpopular decision to threaten the Syrian government because of their infringement upon United Nation legislation. Russia, however, retaliated by warning the United States that our intervention would cause Russia to use menacing force against us. This relates to Roark because the United States used our freedom to go against public opinion and Russia, similar to Toohey, did what would be best regarded by other nations. Ayn Rand's definition of freedom is Roark. It is strength. It is independence. It is autonomy. 

The United States displayed strength and determination of our own will throughout the Syrian issue by going against the requests of our allies to pursue what we as a country decided what was just. The issue illuminates the differences between the Democracy of the United States and the corrupt Federation of Russia. While Russia is moving towards Democracy, the corruption in their government is precisely what Rand was warning the world of in The Fountainhead. What the United States chose to do was risky, but it illustrated our independence as a country. Ayn Rand's novel asserts that narcissism is an important quality for men to acquire. Roark's arrogance is the characteristic that most helped him resist the forces that were attempting to corrupt him. It is no secret that Americans have pride in their country and the freedoms that we enjoy, but is this pride so extreme that it reaches arrogance? In my opinion I find many Americans to be nationalistic and in some cases close-minded to the benefits of the governments of other nations. This conceit, however, often does not get in the way of Americans' ability to criticize their government, which I think is an element of the United States that was highly agreeable to Rand. This clash of opinions is an important part of Rand's philosophy in that people should work to serve their own purpose.

Now, according to Rand, what is freedom? Through her character Howard Roark she personified freedom as independence and the ability to be economically, emotionally, and mentally stable without the assistance of any other human. Communist Russia of the early 20th Century certainly did not fit Rand's ideas, so she left to her Capitalistic beacon of hope, the United States. Of course, the United States didn't live up to her unrealistic expectations but it was certainly closer to the ideal than the corruption in Russia. Syria serves as an example of how Rand's philosophy can be applied to a modern day situation. The strength and weakness of Rand's definition of freedom are demonstrated by the situation with Syria. The strength being that the United States accomplished a safer world by disregarding the opinions of our allies and the weakness is that Rand probably would not have condoned helping another country that would not be able to return anything of value, even though it was the morally correct thing to do. Rand wrote Roark to be the embodiment of everything she wished to find in the "movers" of the world. The independent forces that would produce change and create, by her definition, a better society to live in. Ayn Rand's philosophy is appealing to me by encouraging people to work for themselves and to advance themselves through their own talents and hard work without feeding off of others like a parasite or manipulating others for what they can do for you. Although, I think that Rand's philosophy takes independence to the extreme. Love, nurture, compromise, and coexistence are incredibly valuable components to me in being happy in life. Roark is an egotist, and that, for Rand, is freedom.