Poetry
One of the themes I saw when reading The Dove's Necklace, was that with love comes with inevitable suffering.Both physically and mentally, true love for someone else takes over the mind, making the person restless and frustrated with them self. Questions, confusion, and a lack of patience starts to take over the love sick person. I know I've had that feeling about someone I truly thought I deserved to be with, and when it didn't happen I felt like nothing else in the world could ever make me happy ever again. For me , that feeling soon passed because I have so many other interests than just to be with someone.The writer implies that a person would choose death over life if he or she could not be with the one they truly love. I also liked how the writer compared your true love to be the light of your darkness.
Another theme talks about the roller coaster relationship you have once you are with your lover. This part of the reading describes what most people like to call the "honey moon" phase and the relationship happens between a couple once that phase has faded. Today, majority of the marriages that are made end in divorce. No one has the patience anymore to work through a fight or to deal with their partners bad habits. In this reading, a couple that truly loves each other would be able to handle heavily heated argument and soon be back to normal. This reminds me of the relationship I have with my mother. I only have my most intense fights with her because we are so close and hold a great and sincere love for each other that we are allowed to go far in an argument and still have the ability to forgive eachother afterwards.
In the Hispanic- Arabic poem, the theme of love being painful is compared to being driven by desperateness. I felt the poem was becoming dark as if waiting for a love was like mourning for a death. The relationship between the lovers was described with many nature like characteristics. True love being compared to nature made love seem endlessly beautiful and almost too good to be true. However, all the beauty expressed in true love can be damaging if your without it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Book 3:
3. Okay what I want to know is why did mating snakes bother Tiresias in the first place? And how could he see that they were mating, if he was blind? This made me believe that he hit the snakes on accident and knowing that Tiresias meant no harm , the snakes gave him the ability to transform instead of poisoning him with their venom. They should of just gave him the ability to see instead, or maybe since the Gods have the power to give Tiresias , they could of given him his vision instead. That makes more sense to me. If the snakes are magical , does this mean they are gods as well? I am just caught up with too many questions with this story.
4. The conversation between Echo and Narcissus consisted of two different intentions. Narcissus was curious to find out where the voice he heard was coming from and Echo wanted Narcissus affection. She though narcissus was searching for her and her love. I found this quite funny because every sentence he said sounded like he was yearning for her, when in fact he just needed to know whom he was speaking to. If he would say "Is anyone here?" She would only echo back "here" as in like "I and my love are here for you". When he would say "let us meet together" so he can see her , she would just say "together" because she obviously wanted them to be together for life. Those words were the closest seductive words she could recite back to him. Yes an echo repeats the end of your sentences, but they can only be heard back with the same emotion you expressed them with. She was twisting his meaning.
3. Okay what I want to know is why did mating snakes bother Tiresias in the first place? And how could he see that they were mating, if he was blind? This made me believe that he hit the snakes on accident and knowing that Tiresias meant no harm , the snakes gave him the ability to transform instead of poisoning him with their venom. They should of just gave him the ability to see instead, or maybe since the Gods have the power to give Tiresias , they could of given him his vision instead. That makes more sense to me. If the snakes are magical , does this mean they are gods as well? I am just caught up with too many questions with this story.
4. The conversation between Echo and Narcissus consisted of two different intentions. Narcissus was curious to find out where the voice he heard was coming from and Echo wanted Narcissus affection. She though narcissus was searching for her and her love. I found this quite funny because every sentence he said sounded like he was yearning for her, when in fact he just needed to know whom he was speaking to. If he would say "Is anyone here?" She would only echo back "here" as in like "I and my love are here for you". When he would say "let us meet together" so he can see her , she would just say "together" because she obviously wanted them to be together for life. Those words were the closest seductive words she could recite back to him. Yes an echo repeats the end of your sentences, but they can only be heard back with the same emotion you expressed them with. She was twisting his meaning.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Plato's Republic
"Then Democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor win, killing some of the others' and casting out some, and share the regime and the ruling offices with those who are left on an equal basis; and, for the most part , the offices in it are given by lot.....it is probably necessary for the man who wishes to organize a city , as we were just doing, to go to a city under democracy. He would choose the sort that pleases him , like a man going into a general store of regimes, and, once having chosen, he would thus establish his regime."
There is a continuous pattern of separation. If one man desires to rule in a way of his own, another man just as equal in society might have another idea that will enforce him to rule in an opposite direction. And a lot of the issues that they are having seem to be human flaws that are inevitable to occur.It would be democracy against democracy. Even in a democracy there needs to be an authority figure to speak for all. Though if the poor has nothing to offer, how will leadership be pursued? Yes one would have initial leadership over all, but this means taking the blame for whatever happens. A lot of pressure is put on for whoever speaks for all. The poor would not be as educated as the aristocrats, so they would have weak control and knowledge over the people. I guess the best you can do is fight for what you believe, trying to gather as many people with the same beliefs and join together as one group, creating a voice to be heard by the ones who are not aware of the problems they are neglecting.
"I suppose that because the rulers rule in it thanks to possessing much, they are unwilling to control those among the youth who become licentious by a law forbidding them to spend and waste what belongs to them-- "
The wealthy can choose to have what they desire and what they need to do . If they choose what they desire , whether it is a nessecity or not, or if it is even a good choice, who is going to stop them from pursuing their desires? Since the wealth have the money, they have the control, knowledge , and forces to protect them. This is unfair and unjust to the rest of the society. It is interesting that such a small group could have power over a large amount of unprivileged citizens. You would think the larger group automatically has the upper hand.
"Then Democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor win, killing some of the others' and casting out some, and share the regime and the ruling offices with those who are left on an equal basis; and, for the most part , the offices in it are given by lot.....it is probably necessary for the man who wishes to organize a city , as we were just doing, to go to a city under democracy. He would choose the sort that pleases him , like a man going into a general store of regimes, and, once having chosen, he would thus establish his regime."
There is a continuous pattern of separation. If one man desires to rule in a way of his own, another man just as equal in society might have another idea that will enforce him to rule in an opposite direction. And a lot of the issues that they are having seem to be human flaws that are inevitable to occur.It would be democracy against democracy. Even in a democracy there needs to be an authority figure to speak for all. Though if the poor has nothing to offer, how will leadership be pursued? Yes one would have initial leadership over all, but this means taking the blame for whatever happens. A lot of pressure is put on for whoever speaks for all. The poor would not be as educated as the aristocrats, so they would have weak control and knowledge over the people. I guess the best you can do is fight for what you believe, trying to gather as many people with the same beliefs and join together as one group, creating a voice to be heard by the ones who are not aware of the problems they are neglecting.
"I suppose that because the rulers rule in it thanks to possessing much, they are unwilling to control those among the youth who become licentious by a law forbidding them to spend and waste what belongs to them-- "
The wealthy can choose to have what they desire and what they need to do . If they choose what they desire , whether it is a nessecity or not, or if it is even a good choice, who is going to stop them from pursuing their desires? Since the wealth have the money, they have the control, knowledge , and forces to protect them. This is unfair and unjust to the rest of the society. It is interesting that such a small group could have power over a large amount of unprivileged citizens. You would think the larger group automatically has the upper hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)