discussion post 2

I thought today’s discussion was particularly interesting, especially when the topic of elderly people versus  youth was brought up. Logically, it makes complete sense to rid of elderly person or even someone who is terminal at any age, because they are only a leach on society. Within the 20^th and 21^st centuries, we’ve become so medically advanced that we have increased our life expectancy past natural years. In the 1800’s, the average person passed in their 40’s-50’s of natural causes. However, now we have prolonged death to a point where it really isn’t natural for a person to die at 80. Although it is much easier said than done, humanity idealistically should cut off all medicines that prolong death (which would be most medicines). To most people it seems immoral to allow your loved ones to pass at middle age, but they need to look at the social and economic benefits.

-Morgan  Mills

My First Class Discussion

I really liked today's discussion. I did not know what to expect since I was not at school yesterday, but it was definitely very intriguing. I really enjoy discussions like that. I agree with everything that was said about evolution and after discussing it with Zane and you, Mr. Shapiro, I understood what you both were saying about "letting" someone die, instead of putting all efforts into keeping that person alive -- efforts that could be spent on a younger population to have them succeed. I still stand by my point, though, that if the person who society was supposed to let "die off" was a loved one, it would be much harder to accept and conform to this form of thought. When we went on to the subject of selfishness, I completely agree, because I know that when someone is trying to tell me their story, I am thinking of my own. Or, when someone is talking to me, I only listen to what I can grasp from them. It is probably wrong to do, because I believe it is wrong to be so selfish, but that is just the way it is. But, I still stand by my point that I believe the degree of selfishness varies depending on whom is in front of you -- altruism. For example, as said in class, if it were my best friend, my boyfriend, or a loved family member whom were telling me their "story" or whatever they have to say, I would listen way more attentively then if just an acquaintence were telling me about their winter vacation or what not. I truly believe that the degree of selfishness depends on the person whom you are speaking to, and also the subject matter. For example, if a complete stranger wanted to tell me about their experience with cancer, I would sit and listen. If a complete stranger wanted to tell me about the new Prada purse she bought or her new manicure, I would walk away knowing I had better things to do and definitely, put my attention to.

Happiness

     So we definitely had a interesting conversation today as a class. I understand the logic behind what was said today, we started with the idea that people become old and then they are supposed to die, and if they don't die then they just hold us back. Then we went further to discuss how we are all selfish and believe ourselves to be the most inportant person. I suppose logically I agree with those statements on a intellectual level, however I would like to believe that there is enough diversity within humanity that we cannot all be summed up in one statement. I honestly think that there is no point in dweling on our own selfishness if it is only going to make us unhappy. The narrator even says that a state of overcounciousness leads to misery. There is such a thing as blissfull ignorance and I believe there is something beautiful to found by ignoring the thing that simply suck in life. So that is what I have decided to do, make myself happy by choosing to believe that there is more to poeple them just selfish drives.
P.S. yes Melanie, I am judging you all right now on your posts

Discussion Post Two

Today we spent less time focusing on a specific part or paragraph of the novel, and focused more on the general themes that we see throughout it. We discussed ideas that we had also touched upon in the beginning of the year, ideas such as selfishness and whether not altruism exists, but the idea that stuck with me the most was Dostoevsky’s argument that we’re hurting ourselves by keeping the weak alive. This made me think back to my other classes where to talk about the allocation of resources between sociodemographic and economic classes, and how so much of our country’s resources are being funneled to the elderly through programs such as social security. Obviously because I am young, this makes me a little mad, that the money and support is not being given to us considering that we’re the ones who have something to contribute, and the elderly really don’t. But I guess we have to honor them for what they contributed.

Discussion Part 2 (Alexia Barrios)

Today’s discussion, as controversial as it may have been, had a lot of truth in it. The idea that we weaken the gene pool by keeping those who no longer are capable of contributing to our society alive is one that with all emotions put aside is logical. But humans are not strictly logical and rational creatures, we are often blinded by emotion and for that reason many cannot fathom the concept of eradicating or simply allowing those who have “reached their time” to die. Instead we keep them alive. Why? The answer is that humans are inherently selfish beings. In the case of a loved on, we may keep them alive because we believe we are doing to the best for them, but in reality we are doing it because we cannot fathom a future without them. We want to hold on to them as long as possible and prolong our relationship with them and that is where the selfishness kicks in. The moment of some else's passing is not about ourselves, but yet we find a way to relate or tie it to ourselves. 

Today's Discussions

I feel that the last paragraph of the first chapter contains a few interesting points. First off, the narrator assumes that the reader wants the narrator to amuse him. This statement, or at least the way Dostoevsky writes it, has a feeling of superiority to it. It makes me, personally, feel that the narrator thinks that I'm looking for a simple, easy story for imbeciles.

The narrator claims in the previous paragraph (from the last one) that old age is a sin, yet he believes that he should live on. As discussed in class, usually people and animals are really alive as long as they are useful. This makes me believe that the narrator thinks of himself as useful, even after he is physically unable to contribute to society.

The final point is the last phrase of this chapter, where he inquires about what decent men talk about. He says that he will talk about himself, thus labeling himself as a decent, yet normal man completely shooting the concept of superiority out of the water.

Looking forward to tomorrow...

The Touchy Subject of Population Control (Zane Mandell)

Discussion on today’s topic really seemed to flourish among many of the students. I am personally very passionate about this subject and was glad to have received the passage that Mr. Shapiro gave me. But let’s get to the point: While it may seem immoral to institute any policy for population control right now, it is actually immoral not to. If we do not do something about the rapid growth of the population then we will make the planet unlivable. We will have drawn too much from the earth, as there are too many mouths to feed. Efficiency is of utmost priority in any format. If the ‘machine’ inefficient it serves no purpose. A purposeless ‘machine’ is then discarded. While it may seem against everything we have learned it is this that will be the toughest choice the human race ever will have to make. To we allow ourselves to descend to the point of no return, or do we take steps that secure the preservation of our species. It is really that simple, what is more important, right now or the future?

Selfishness

Everyone is selfish. Altruism does not exist. I always thought these were such pessimistic thoughts, but today in class I realized I was wrong. Everything a person does is to benefit themselves in some way. Whether it is listening to someone because you want to make him or her happy, or because you want to be their friend. Everything we do has a distinct purpose and we all would like to talk about ourselves. Honestly, if you do not agree take a second and think about it. Humans love to talk about themselves and what they have done or plan to do. This is what this whole novel is about for the underground man. He is writing about himself because he wants to learn more about himself. He currently doubts himself in some aspects and is trying to understand himself. This is something that I believe everyone in his or her lifetime will try to achieve.

The selfishness of humanity

Today's discussion was interesting in a lot of ways. It really made me understand where the Underground Man is coming from and a lot of what he says makes much more sense now. I never really entertained the thought that all humans are inherently selfish. In a way, it is rather depressing to think about, but it is extremely accurate. Humans only think about themselves and what they can possibly do to benefit themselves. The underground man is no different from the rest of humanity, as much as he would like to think he is. Although he speaks so condescendly of the human race and deems himself as so much more intelligent and superior to every other human being on this planet, he has an odd fixation on wanting to fit in and be accepted by the outside world. He is a man of many contradictions and a lot of those contradictions were cleared up in today's discussion.

Second Thoughts on Today's Discussion

      Today’s discussion covered a number of controversial topics, to say the least. The idea that the elderly become almost useless and a burden on society was argued from a variety of perspectives. Some people said that perhaps the youth should not care so much for the old that are not doing anything back for society. My opinion is that the elderly should be cared for to an extent. Specifically, I do not believe that people living entirely off of machines should be kept living just because of their relatives’ selfish nature. A second major idea that was brought up was the idea that we put ourselves in front of everyone else. I could not agree more with this statement because everything that we do in life is driven by our own self interests and benefits. Although some disagreed in the class, I believe that when it boils down to it, they would put their life before anyone else’s. 

The Divine vs Reality

    I feel it is necessary first of to state that I am not in fact “Mother Teresa” or the reincarnation of “Jesus”. I did not at all use the words but rather stated a fact about myself that my absolute truth is that when others talk to me I do not feel compelled to talk about myself. I do not even think about what I want to say to them unless it is a friend who I am quite comfortable with. I am content with listening to others without revealing my thoughts or impressions. Instead I listen carefully to what someone has to say to me as they feel it is of utmost importance. I listen not to gain a boost to my ego, but rather, I do it because I am just a humble optimist readily willing to listen to anyone who wants to talk to me. I guess people just are not familiar with the terms kindness and humility; but, it is not my problem that everyone believes they are inherently selfish. Maybe thats the problem with this world. It is possible that a shift of perspective and loss of selfishness could benefit this world for the better. I do not feel as if I am better than anyone else. I am who I am and am confident in what makes me Ari and do not need anyone else to tell me otherwise. Others can go on as they please but this is just my vantage point on a subject which I find to quite interesting,

Class Discussion (1/30/14) (Meagan Adler)

In today’s discussion, I was particularly intrigued by the part of the novel where the narrator says, “Who does live beyond forty? Answer that, sincerely and honestly.  I will tell you who do: fools and worthless fellows….I shall go on living to sixty myself.  To seventy!  To eighty!” (pg.3).  On a theoretical level, I agree with the idea that in trying to interfere and stop people from naturally dying, we are contributing to an inefficient society that consequently regresses as opposed to progresses; however, on a more practical level, I feel as if this idea is almost a robotic approach to take, for it is dehumanizing to get rid of the people we consider worthless in our society.  Furthermore, we need these people in order for the contributors to function; what would a doctor do without the sick patients he lives to take care of? What would the employees in a nursing home do without the elderly to take care of? What is the purpose of contributing to society if society never gives back to you?  In context of the novel, I agree with the idea that the narrator expresses about the worthlessness that comes with age; however, I cannot agree that this idea is one that can be morally corrected in reality.  

Discussion: 1/30

After today’s discussion about prolonging life, I have to say that I can understand both opposing point of views. It is definitely true that humans try to expand life as far as possible, never really thinking about the negatives of the situation; they are simply concerned with ensuring that the person lives. A few days ago, one of my parents’ friends lost his father after weeks of being on life support. As awful as it may sound, I saw how much of a burden the father’s poor health situation was for his family. I think that in theory, allowing people to die when it’s their time is rather logical. The weaker individuals will be gone, and society will be able to progress forward with the stronger and more intelligent. However, I think that in actuality, this type of mindset will not work. Humans become attached to one another, so it is difficult to just stand back and accept someone’s death, without even trying to keep that person alive.

2nd Class Discussion

            I found todays discussion sad, but somewhat true.  We keep people alive longer than they should be kept alive because we do not want to see them go.  They are a burden to us as we may keep someone on life support using tons of money.  However, I would still do this for any of my family or friends.  It may be a burden, but I would not want to see them go.  It may be bad for society to keep them alive for this long, but when it is a family member or friend we disregard the whole world and only think about ourselves.  Also, people don’t want to die because there is nothing left for them after they die.  They work all their life for money, so they can finally retire, and in the end they just die.  It is scary to think that after you work all your life for something, you just die and then you’re gone.  This is brought up on page three of the book when the narrator says, “last year a distant relation left me six thousand roubles in his will I immediately retired from the service and settled down in my corner,” (page 3).  This shows that the narrator worked until he had enough money to retire and settle down “underground” for the rest of his life.