Something Wicked This Way Comes

1.
In Acts I and II of "Macbeth," by William Shakespeare, 3 witches make a prediction that Macbeth will become Thane of Cawdor (the prior Thane having been executed as a traitor) and then King, and they also predict that Banquo will beget Kings. Macbeth and Banquo are honored by King Duncan for their efforts in the battle with the Norwegians, and Macbeth is named Thane of Cawdor, and the King's son, Malcolm, is named Prince of Cumberland, and heir to the throne. After this he begins to set some store by the witches' prediction, and writes to his wife to explain what happened. Lady Macbeth immediately decides that King Duncan must be killed, and when she finds out that the King will be staying at Macbeth's castle. When Macbeth returns, Lady Macbeth and him plot to kill the King. During the night, Macbeth stabs King Duncan, and Lady Macbeth puts blood on the guards, so they will be blamed for the murder. In the morning, Duncan's body is discovered, Macbeth kills the guards in a "fit of passion," Duncan's sons run away, fearing for their lives, and the entire court left without a king by Macbeth's act of treason.

2.
Macbeth is a good person, who is direly mislead by his own perceptions, and the malign motives of others around him. He is a war hero, and a "valiant...and worthy gentleman ," and valuable asset to the army of King Duncan. He is "brave," and is "valour's minion." Not only that, but he is distressed to hear that the traitor, the Thane of Cawdor is to be executed, and that he is to receive the title. He asks "why [he is] to be dressed in borrowed robes." Unfortunately, he is also ambitious, and when he finds that part of the witches prediction was true, and believes that the prediction is a "happy prologue to the swelling act of the imperial theme." He is led even farther astray by Lady Macbeth, who convinces him to kill King Duncan, and while many would see fit to antagonize his character, we must remain aware of his redeeming qualities. When he is on the cusp of murder, he wavers, and questions his intent. He believes that they "still have judgement [there]," and that as "his kinsman and his subject," he should be strong against the deed, and as his host, "who should against murder shut the door." Unfortunately, in the end, he does commit murder, but in truth, he is a noble and honourable man who is direly mislead by the temptations placed before him.

3.
If I were to direct an adaptation of Macbeth, I would set it in a medieval time. However, to improve upon the version we watched, I would focus less on the blood and gore, and make the play much more psychological. For example, the witches would not be so creepy, but more personable, to stick with the them that "foul is fair, and fair is foul." I would not show the "dagger [he] sees before [him]," but instead use a visual image of a tower in the distance to illustrate this image. I would not show Duncan's murder, but would use the text more to illustrate the horror of his actions. I would hope to make the audience more sympathetic to Macbeth, and to understand his motives for the actions he performs.
Throughout my play, I would try to remain true to the real spirit of Shakespeare, and to illustrate the intricate themes through dialogue and human interaction, as opposed to violence.

Sophie's World

A whimsical journey through the history of philosophy, Jostien Gaarder's novel "Sophies World," should be regarded as one of the great works of our time. This New York Times best seller is a truly charming and fun way to call into question the greatest philosophical dilemmas of history.

This is a great book, and I seriously think that you should read it.
Seriously.

Go. Read. Now.

The Raven

"The Raven," is a compelling and interesting take on classic adventure fantasy.
The third installment of the "Books of Pellinor," by Allison Croggon (Candlewick Press) is intense, and rather epic.
Lost in a world in turmoil, a young boy is forced to take a walk through the root of human evil, and question not only himself, but also those closest to him, in this grand culmination exploring the root of human cruelty.

I highly recommend this read, the entire series is great, and I highly anticipate the fourth, and final, installment.

Kill someone?

The death penalty violates basic human rights, and by invoking it, we are being completely hypocritical.
To "Kill and be killed" is a concept that has existed since time began, and it is a basic human instinct to want to eliminate a threat.
But in today's society we are above such things. We have the ability to comprehend human morals, and we must distinguish ourselves from animals. As a government, to approve of the death penalty is to approve of killing, and is completely unorthodox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

The death penalty should not be invoked upon any criminals, because only through kindness and forgiveness can we truly move toward a more peaceful society.

Which way does your Moral Compass point?

How often do you question what you believe?
Do you think that your belief system can be categorized?
The article "Which Way does your Moral Compass Point," by Douglas Todd, discusses the categories of Canadians' morals. But how accurately can somebody categorize another's belief?
The article categorizes people into 5 different groups, of which I fit into none. This, more than anything, has made me disbelieve that one cannot categorize a person's values. However, I also believe that religion does just that. When people are brought into a certain religion, they are automatically forced to believe in the beliefs of it, and therefore categorized. One can say that a person has "Christian values," if they are a Christian. This conformist aspect of society is what causes people to never question what they believe, and strips them of their own right to choose their beliefs.
I question what I believe every day, and I try to critically analyze all moral situations I am presented with.

I believe that the three most important factors in my life that affect what my value system are my parents, religion, and culture.
My parents are amazing critical thinkers, and they have taught me the difference between right and wrong. Not only that, but they have helped me learn to critically analyze moral situations. They have not told me what to believe, but given me the tools to make my own decision.
I am an Atheist, and it is more my lack of religion, than my religion, that has allowed me to make moral choices. Not having a religion has allowed me to make my own choices about my morals, rather than having them told to me.
My culture has also influenced my morals. Rather than make me conform to the norm in western society, people's unerring belief in certain ideologies has made me question why I should believe in them. I have also been able to experience many different cultures, and this has made me more open to question my beliefs.
The ideologies presented by all people are acceptable, on certain conditions. If they have had a chance to question their beliefs, and still accept them, then they are acceptable. If people have had a chance to explore a different number of beliefs, and not simply be forced into believing something simply because it is a part of their heritage, then they have had a chance to choose what they will believe, and have therefore critically examined what they choose to believe.
I have a very strong sense of what I believe is right and wrong, but I am able to see the grey areas, and do not accept anything at face value. It is important to be able to see all sides of an issue before you choose one.
My morals have never been completely set. My morals are constantly changing, depending on situations that present themselves. The influence of other people makes me constantly call into question my beliefs, and I try never to be too set in what I think.
It is important to make your opinion heard, but if people truly believe it is wrong, you cannot force them to see the right. As long as people have really examined my viewpoint, and not simply rejected it because it is not the same as theirs, then I will not attempt to impress it upon them.

Orthodoxy is unconsciousness

"How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." ~pg. 56

Within this passage, Syme discusses the dictionary of Newspeak, and the fact that when it is published, it will abolish all opposites. Not only that, but it will destroy scores of words, and "[cut] the language down to the bone."

The concept that "freedom is slavery" is a prevalent theme in the book, yet the idea that freedom will be abolished completely changes the entire "climate of thought" of the society. One must question how slavery can exist when freedom has been abolished. For instance, can one say "unslavery is slavery," or simply "slavery?"
By the quote "freedom is slavery," the government means that one does not have the burden of thought if one is a slave, and in this we truly achieve freedom. And yet, if one abolishes the concept of freedom, is one still truly free if they are not burdened with thought, or in this unconsciousness are we truly oppressed? To say that "orthodoxy is unconsciousness" is the same as saying "heresy is consciousness," but how are those who follow orthodoxy to know of heresy if they are truly slaves of thought? And are the leaders of the society truly heretic, because they must consciously oppress their followers?
Propaganda is one of the most important tools of the government. It allows them to gain control of others' thoughts by warping the meaning of different concepts. Unfortunately, by abolishing various concepts, such as freedom, they are essentially abolishing their ability to control the public, and therefore abolishing their regime. To replace a slogan such as "freedom is slavery" with "unslavery is slavery" would open the minds of the citizens to the thought that in "unslavery," how can one find "slavery," as they directly contradict each other. Yet to use the quote "slavery," would give rise to the understanding that the citizens are all truly slaves.

In total, is language truly a contributing factor in the oppression of a society, or do the conscious thoughts and actions of a totalitarian government make or break the regime?

Something to talk about....

-Gossip has 2 sides.

-Gossip can make people feel superior to others.

-Gossip can help us gather information we need to know.

-If you stay within limits, gossip is an ethical activity.

-Gossip is given a bad name by people who take it too far.


The article "Gossip, when it's not too nasty, it has it's good side," by Douglas Todd, examines the two very different sides of gossip, and how it can be an ethical activity, though it is given a bad name.



The argument by Douglas Todd that gossip can at times be an ethical activity is unfounded and repetitive. Todd opens with an introduction, and then proceeds to spend a third of his article citing the more usual argument concerning the negative implications of gossip. He states that journalists can "revel too much in negative, unsubstantiated tales about others," and that "malicious gossip...led to the untimely deaths of both Jesus and Socrates." Todd then states that "If you define gossip as spreading derogatory, unconfirmed information about someone, clearly that is unfair and dangerous." Unfortunately, he fails to state how he would define gossip more positively.
The correct definition of gossip, according to dictionary.com, is "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others." Todd confuses meaningful communication about factual information, personal or otherwise, with the term "gossip," which, by dictionary definition is an incorrect use of the word.
Some of his examples, such as the "initially murky tip," regarding Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving arrest, perhaps should not have been published, as they were merely "malicious gossip," until later confirmed by independent sources. However, Todd's argument is that unconfirmed reports, such as this one, can, in effect, act as advertising for further substantiated information.
Hypocritical Todd would have us believe that by "publicizing revelations" about J. Edgar Hoover, we would prevent Hoover from "publicizing revelations" about other Americans. What this example illustrates, more than anything, is the morality of the press at the time, and their unwillingness to attack powerful governmental figures.
I would also make the point that while Todd thinks that truth is a justification of vicious gossip, some truthful gossip can be used as a weapon, just as much as untruthful gossip.
The remainder of Todd's argument comes down to the fact that gossip can be good if good people do it with discretion, and don't make it the center of their lives. Unfortunately, if you asked most people, they would probably consider themselves good.


Response to Sam's blog post:
I agree with Sam, unfortunately, the statistics in Todd's article suggest that gossip is not going to go away. Simply disagreeing with gossip does not change the amount of gossip that is spread. It also does not provide a moral framework with which to judge gossip upon. While Sam makes good points about the confusing feelings gossip can cause, she does not back up her argument, or provide a solution for the problems gossip poses.