UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Regular Literary Discussion
A proposal in lieu of recent inactivity.
-
Date: Wed, Nov 4 2009 10:50:41
In order to perhaps breathe life into a dying section of the forum (incidentally the most important OT section, in my opinion), I venture this notion:
With a lack of literary discussion, we could introduce a weekly(?) segment whereby we discuss a piece of poetry or prose. Maybe even a chapter from a book or novel.
I put forth this topic to gauge the general consensus for the idea. To see if the project would be worthwhile under these conditions. -
Date: Wed, Nov 4 2009 18:24:00
I am all for it, I have been trying to expand my vocabulary lately so that may help.
Who would be responsible for deciding what to post and what not? -
Date: Wed, Nov 4 2009 20:44:57
I'd like this ides, as long as the writing is either online or easily available to most people. No one wants a 2 person conversation because no one else can find that piece of writing... 
-
Date: Thu, Nov 5 2009 08:34:33
how about George Orwell's 1984? I think it's worth discussing
-
Date: Thu, Nov 5 2009 10:15:19
Thats a great book to discuss chapter by chapter.
Some titles we could obtain at Project Gutenberg.
We could do classics like
Jane Eyre
Great Expectations
even stuff like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Perhaps scifi, fantasy novels even. -
Date: Thu, Nov 12 2009 09:12:30
i like this idea jaybles.
my suggestions :
-LOTR
-Joy luck club
-animal farm ? -
Date: Thu, Nov 12 2009 11:52:48
Yep. I haven't heard of Joy Luck Club but YES to the other two. I think I'll start off 1984 next week to see how it goes. I'll get a copy of it.
-
Date: Fri, Nov 13 2009 02:31:45
could i request heat of darkness (heart of darkness, mis-spelt the title in my english essay)
i'm wondering if anyone actually got the plot.... -
Date: Fri, Nov 13 2009 10:57:12
1984 is public domain in Australia, you can read it at http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt unless you particularly want to buy it (I'd say it doesn't cost very much anymore) or hate reading off a computer screen.
-
Date: Fri, Nov 13 2009 16:47:42QUOTE (Tim @ Nov 13 2009, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>1984 is public domain in Australia, you can read it at http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt unless you particularly want to buy it (I'd say it doesn't cost very much anymore) or hate reading off a computer screen.
That's exactly why we are doing 1984. -
Date: Fri, Nov 13 2009 17:21:17
I apologise, by 'I think I'll start off 1984 next week', I did not think that meant that everyone was doing it.
-
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 03:29:51
Literary discussion is fun. I love philosophy too. Either one would be good.
I can post some interesting passages from various stuff if you want. -
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 03:56:20
Oh no no, Tim. For full books, I'll create another thread per chapter per week. I'll post a download link to a pdf of 1984 and give it a week for people to post what they thought of the chapter and in subsequent chapter, what had occured thus far.
IAmGuy, Philosophy should get their own threads. Don't really want to manage that right now. For poems and prose, I'll post examples of the format. -
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 04:32:35
I am more for poetry or short stories myself, but if everyone wants to do books thats cool with me too. I think trying to do both at once would be too much at first.
A similar thread for philosophy would be sweet also. I am in agreement with Jaybles that philosophy is beyond the scope of this. -
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 04:48:28QUOTE (Jaybles @ Nov 13 2009, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Oh no no, Tim. For full books, I'll create another thread per chapter per week. I'll post a download link to a pdf of 1984 and give it a week for people to post what they thought of the chapter and in subsequent chapter, what had occured thus far.
IAmGuy, Philosophy should get their own threads. Don't really want to manage that right now. For poems and prose, I'll post examples of the format.
so true. -
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 15:48:51
Alright, I've just completed the first thread for a Poem discussion.
You can see my analysis here: http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?showt...mp;#entry303123
That's an example of a somewhat comprehensive analysis of the poem.
Mind, I did put heavy emphasis on the structure rather than the actual meaning of the poem but you can post what ever thoughts might occur to you. -
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 21:03:47QUOTE (Jaybles @ Nov 14 2009, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Alright, I've just completed the first thread for a Poem discussion.
You can see my analysis here: http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?showt...mp;#entry303123
That's an example of a somewhat comprehensive analysis of the poem.
Mind, I did put heavy emphasis on the structure rather than the actual meaning of the poem but you can post what ever thoughts might occur to you.
The link does not work for me. Could you please repost it? -
Date: Sun, Nov 15 2009 01:29:07
okay, 1984 is a pretty good example of totalitarianism.
But rather than political stuff, I was much more interested in philosophical views on that book.
2+2=5 was pretty good. "Two and Two doesn't make five but if everyone believes so, doesn't it make it true?" i think it was. that's pretty true. It was pretty good when Winston said "I see 5 fingers" when O'Brien was holding 4 fingers up during the torture (section 3).
Think about the society we are living in. We have our sense of "What is right" and "what is wrong", but those are merely morals we learn as we grow up. When we are just small brats, we do mischief ranging from light ones to serious ones. But that is not because we are "bad people". It's because we weren't taught what is right and what is wrong.
in 1984, the Thoughtpolice tortures Winston into believing something radically different. Same goes for us. When we are small brats, we do many "wrong" things and parents would yell at us, hit us, kick us out of the house for a while so that we believe what they say is "right".
Why is killing wrong? Why are we taught that killing is wrong? What's so bad about killing? We kill animals. but why not human? Why is killing justified in war? Parents teaches us that life is beautiful or something or taking people's lives are wrong because it would do this and that. Those are merely things we are indoctrinated with so that we won't kill.
The reality is that the "killing is wrong" type of thing is only born from human's basic instinct to live, and refusing to die. Laws are contract between people and people to "not to kill each other" so that their life is protected.
so basically, if the society indoctrinate us to think a certain, we believe that is the "justice". -
Date: Sun, Nov 15 2009 03:39:02
Ha, DAR, that came out exactly from your blog. Haven't the foggiest what your saying though, keeping my mind fresh for the chapter-by-chapter.
-
Date: Sun, Nov 15 2009 04:46:07QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Nov 14 2009, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>okay, 1984 is a pretty good example of totalitarianism.
But rather than political stuff, I was much more interested in philosophical views on that book.
2+2=5 was pretty good. "Two and Two doesn't make five but if everyone believes so, doesn't it make it true?" i think it was. that's pretty true. It was pretty good when Winston said "I see 5 fingers" when O'Brien was holding 4 fingers up during the torture (section 3).
Think about the society we are living in. We have our sense of "What is right" and "what is wrong", but those are merely morals we learn as we grow up. When we are just small brats, we do mischief ranging from light ones to serious ones. But that is not because we are "bad people". It's because we weren't taught what is right and what is wrong.
in 1984, the Thoughtpolice tortures Winston into believing something radically different. Same goes for us. When we are small brats, we do many "wrong" things and parents would yell at us, hit us, kick us out of the house for a while so that we believe what they say is "right".
Why is killing wrong? Why are we taught that killing is wrong? What's so bad about killing? We kill animals. but why not human? Why is killing justified in war? Parents teaches us that life is beautiful or something or taking people's lives are wrong because it would do this and that. Those are merely things we are indoctrinated with so that we won't kill.
The reality is that the "killing is wrong" type of thing is only born from human's basic instinct to live, and refusing to die. Laws are contract between people and people to "not to kill each other" so that their life is protected.
so basically, if the society indoctrinate us to think a certain, we believe that is the "justice".
I think killing humans is seen as wrong because it goes against our social nature. One human can contribute quite a bit to the society they live in a lifetime. If we were to condone killing it would serve as a huge detriment to the society we live in. Same as acts like stealing. If people just stole no one would produce anything themselves since its easier to just take stuff. The people would starve if it reached epidemic proportions. It is a community's duty to shun those that commit acts that harm it. It is logical that individuals would see some actions as bad, since crimes indirectly harm them.
I don't see laws so much as a contract, but something to ensure the culture as a whole can flourish. -
Date: Sun, Nov 15 2009 06:12:57QUOTE (IAmTheMrGuy @ Nov 15 2009, 05:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The link does not work for me. Could you please repost it?
http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?showt...st&p=303123 -
Date: Sun, Nov 15 2009 08:32:12
exactly Awesome, the society indoctrinates you to feel that killing humans is wrong. It's merely something the society decides to do for the benefit of themselves.
Nothing is ever "wrong". There's no such thing as absolute justice. Justice is relative, Something "decided" upon the development of society. If no one lives together but rather live freely but stealing or killing this and that, then there will be no such thing as "killing is wrong", "stealing is wrong" and stuff like that. It's because humanity chose to live in society that those kind of rules exist.
Do you think tigers think what they are doing by killing other animals and eating it is wrong? No. It's merely an animalistic instinct they were born with. To kill to survive. On the other hand how about the prey? They just run away so they could live.
However, human has developed Cerebral Cortex. During their development within the group each thinks that they don't want to die. They don't want their stuff to be taken away. So by making truce with each other their safety is ensured. By adding "police" to it, it is not only ensured but enforced. The result is "If you don't want to be killed, don't kill". A complete Hypothetical Imperative. Laws are filled with those kind of stuff. about 99.9999...% of the laws are like that: A contract. I won't kill you so you won't kill me. I won't steal so you won't steal.
So we only think it is wrong. But in reality it's not "wrong". There is no such thing as "wrong".
It's the indoctrination of the society.
Let's make it easier:
Because there is no such thing as absolute "wrong", there's a limit to what we define justice. Is execution justice or injustice? When we debate about this matter, we eventually end up with "which is more beneficial". What is right or wrong is dependent on which is more beneficial. There are countries that don't do execution, but country that do execution. it become a discussion without "right" or "wrong".
Good example of when it couldn't be decided whether it was "right" or "wrong". Japanese Self-Defense Force. In Japan, some people feel that Self-Defense Force is unneeded because of this and that. When this was brought up as a debate, the Japanese Judicial ended the debate that they will "NO DECISION".