Lindsey #3

Spending time in isolation would be very different from the way the majority of humans live. Living totally alone would cause major changes in personality and mood. I think that at first, a person may use the solitude as a time to think about their life and process their situation. When alone, a person mind is free from distractions and can be thoroughly cleared. The freedom from media and electronics would be refreshing. Social media in particular can have such a negative effect on a persons mood or feelings and separation from that can be good for the soul. After the soul-searching and freedom, I think that the isolation would become very lonely and upsetting.  Human interaction is a necessity in life for growth and development of a person and their brain. I do believe that there are a few people out there who would actually totally benefit from solitude and be able to survive in those extreme conditions.

Personally, I would use the first few moments alone to take a step back and evaluate myself. I would evaluate my behaviors, morals, ideas, actions, and many other things that create who I am. A break from social media would be such a relief and give me time to process my own opinions of myself and situations around me without paying attention to what others value. However, I could not imagine living alone in isolation. Personally, I thrive off of human interaction and being around others. I am in my most comfortable and happy state when I am surrounded by my friends and family. Being around other people and seeing their happy faces boosts my personality and mood. In isolation, I would become very sad and lonely and I don't think I could survive for even a short period time.

Emily Brun Blog 3

Happiness is something that, for some people, can take a lot of work. Happiness does not always come easy and therefore should be cherished and taken advantage of. When it comes to hurting other people to gain happiness, I think the limit to what is acceptable is circumstantial. If you are hurting someone to the point where their happiness is in danger, a great deal of consideration should be taken into account before one acts upon personal happiness. If the situation seems to be like an inconvenience to the other person more than it does a damage to their happiness, one should take into account their own personal well being.
However, sometimes one's personal happiness is most important. One cannot control the actions or feelings of others, and it is unfair to oneself to please others at the expense of their happiness and overall mental well being. While hurting someone intentionally is never excusable, personal happiness is something that should not be compromised often for the sake of others. This is not saying that people should not make sacrifices and do things for other people, but if it comes down to being truly happy and not miserable, one must put their mental health first.

Blog number three: Emily Gilliam

Happiness is individual to each person, and this is why I personally would risk the disappointment of a family member or friend to be personally happy. Happiness is in the eye of the beholder. My happiness does not look the same as my grandparents' happiness, or any other family member or friend of mine, for that matter. I, myself have already risked my grandparents happiness by being individual in my political views and ultimately, this has led to many arguments that very well could have resulted in them being disappointed in me.

I am willing to risk disappointment for happiness because if someone lives a life unhappy, they are not actually living. There is absolutely no point in waking up every single day if you are not happy with your life. I believe that hurting someone for your own good can be justified, but not in every situation is hurting someone justified. If you do not tend to your own happiness and health, (mentally and physically) then no one will. Personal happiness is one of the most important things in someone's life and this is why I would undoubtedly disappoint someone close for me for my own happiness.

Ethan Frome

Living alone, in a remote rural area, without any means of communication, would create a completely new lifestyle. You would no longer learn about the new things occurring every day, or be able to keep up with what is happening in the world. I think that what would basically happen would be that you would be frozen (for a short time) as whatever you are as a person when you went into this isolation. Then, you would gradually develop into a person that would be unrecognizable to the old you.

Ethan Frome Blog #3: Max McIntire

I can only imagine that living completely isolated would be very quiet, and very lonely, though liberating. The concept of not being beholden to anyone seems refreshing. However, not having any interaction with another person just sounds lonely, and while I enjoy not interacting with anyone for an entire day every once in a while, like just about everything, it would probably get old fast. Aside from that, the idea of being completely alone sounds like a very quiet experience.

If I were to live alone in a remote area, I would most likely be initially okay, but would slip into some sort of unhealthy mental state. To add perspective, I am an extremely introverted person. I, in certain cases, prefer isolation to interaction. That being said, everyone needs human interaction, because humans are social creatures. While I would initially enjoy the isolation, that enjoyment would only last for so long.

Being alone would have profound psychological effects, though not ones as extreme as a descent into full blown insanity. The result would be a mentally unpolished person, someone without understanding of social cues, even if they had previously been a normally functioning social person. Social skills only develop from social interaction, and a lack of those skills would probably be the most apparent difference in a person completely isolated.

Blog entry #3 Colin Harmon

I think that living a life isolated from people would be very lonely. The life you would live would be totally in your own thoughts. I think that some types of people could easily do that, but others, who crave more human interaction, would just about go crazy if they couldn't interact with anyone. I think that anyone who were to live in isolation would have to keep themselves busy all the time to keep their mind of of their lack of relationships and human interaction.

Some possible effects of living an isolated life could be that you would go crazy or that you would lose your social skills. For me personally, I think I would have a hard time living in isolation, just because I like to interact with people so much. I also think I would get bored with my life if I had no one to talk to. The possibility of losing your social skills would also be a risk of living in isolation.

Blog #3 Chase Bowman

 In order to fulfill your own happiness you have to hurt or gravely disappoint a family member or a friend. What would you do, and why? Is hurting another person ever justified? What price are you willing to pay for personal happiness?

Personal happiness is a difficult subject to judge and make a firm decision because as a society we have a double standard. As a society we push toward the majority is more important than the individual. This can be seen in tax breaks, or welfare where the idea that the individuals that have the money are less important or can spare compared to the people who are in need of welfare or tax breaks. This idea that society pushes contrasts against the individual because due to everyone's survival instincts we tend to want and think for ones self. This is where the dilemma or struggle to decide one way or another is caused or originates from. 

Personally this dilemma only occurs with the public mass rather then my family because I see my family as an extension of me. My parents, especially my dad, pushed the idea that family is more important or equally important to oneself. I have taken this to heart and this is reflected in my decisions of value or priorities. To answer the question I would not hurt or gravely disappoint a family member or friend because of my personal view of friends and families. I can imagine scenarios where you could say its justified, but again with my views I could not believe or see any justification for it. My price for personal happiness is hard work and effort because I think that if a person wants to achieve happiness or a goal it is equivalent to their dedication or work. I've been told that my beliefs mirror the american dream of that anything is possible through hard work and I believe this carries over to personal happiness. No one can change an individuals situation other than the individual. Therefore the price for personal happiness is ones work effort and optimism. 

Blog #3 Harrison Level

Living a life that is isolated from all other humans would be terribly difficult. No telephone, TV, email, or communication digitally would alone be very different to me as my life is almost centered around electronics. I talk with my parents and friends through the phone. I email my teachers about questions I have on an assignment. I call my father when he is away on a business trip. No electronic communication would be a very tough thing to get used to, but I could eventually get used to it.

The thing I could not get used to, no matter how much I try, would be no communication with other people at all. Companionship is not just something that I want and need in my life, rather it is something that everyone needs. There are TV shows about people who try to survive on their own in the wilderness for as long as they can, and they all have the same result. The survivor can usually get a source of water, start a fire, have some food, and sleep in some shelter. The part that no one can overcome is the fact that they have no one to talk to. Interaction is a human necessity and if I were unable to have this, I would go insane. 

The effects of living in isolation would be hard to predict, although there are running themes in cases where people are isolated. I would probably go insane without talking to someone else for a long time; I might even hallucinate conversations with imaginary people. Personally, I think that I would reach a point where I could not take it anymore, and would leave to find other people by any means necessary. I do not think that isolation would work out very long for me.

Blog #3 Response: Abbey Kolbeck

Living in complete isolation could completely change your view on the world and everything inside it. Many people today irritate on how this generation is so consumed in technology, and it has shaped our culture in the way we now live. But with this isolation, you would have none. You can no longer depend on a television or the internet for entertainment, a telephone or email for communication, a phone to look up the weather. Nothing. With no technology and no other human interaction can really make one lonely. There would only be naturist things todo such as a hike or some sorts. But todo these things without a companion will in the end put a damper on the mood.

Some possible effects of living in isolation would be depression. You're constantly lonely with no one to spend time with or talk to. All your time is with yourself and your own thoughts. While sometimes it's good to be alone, it's not good to be alone for eternity. In my opinion, I would become very bored. Nature is beautiful and wonderful to admire but there's only so many trails one can go on and not get used to the familiarness. In the end, I would constantly miss and think about my loved ones. 

Blog #3 Response: Meghan Tokala

Living a life of isolation would alter everyones day to day life. Not being able to connect with people through social media or even face to face contact would change ones perspective on humans and society. Children are taught social cues and norms through their friends and family. Isolation would change this completely. This child would grow up not knowing the rights and wrongs of society. If any person were to leave a life of day to day interaction with people for one of isolation, the results could be catastrophic. The loneliness could be enough to drive anyone mad. Isolation is seen as a punishment, not a reward, because most humans thrive on validation from other humans. If this is taken away, some people might lose their will to live.

I could not handle living a life of isolation. As a normal human, I enjoy talking and interacting with my friends and family. These relationships are things that I cherish deeply. If these bonds were ever broken, I don't know how I would survive. Isolation would force me to ignore everyone that's close to me; that in itself would cause me to go insane. I could not deal with the loneliness of isolation.

Blog #3 Response: Eric Blonigen

Living in isolation would be, obviously, very lonely. Humans are social creatures, and without any social interaction at all, it is like we are missing some part of ourselves. The amount of time it would take for being alone to change from tranquil to terrible varies from person to person, but there is always a point where solitude stops being pleasant.
 Based on known cases of extreme solitude, especially "prairie madness," which is caused by circumstances similar to those of the Frome household, we can make reasonable assumptions about solitude's effect. Over extended periods, situations with little to no social contact lead to depression and anxiety. Individuals will withdraw from the few social situations they have, worsening the isolation, and violence and suicide are not uncommon. All in all, it is very unpleasant.
 I think if I was in this situation, my introversion will allow me to last longer than others, but I could not go on forever. It is a rare breed that can survive isolation, and I am not one of them.

Blog #3 Ethan Frome: Blaise Webster

 It would undoubtedly be difficult to live in complete isolation from people. Since, human's are social beings, it would be inevitably detrimental to physical and mental health, and even spiritual health, if you believe in that sort of thing. If there was no companion ship or communication, the person who is locked away may begin to show signs of cabin fever. As far as I understand it, cabin fever is the slow degeneration of mental saneness due to prolonged isolation and lack of human interaction. It would definitely be lonely and depressing.

I would definitely become depressed without any human interaction, maybe even lethally depressed. One of the most beautiful things about life, is that sacred bond we have with other human beings. It's pretty awesome that we are able to communicate our experiences and care and support each other as we journey through life. With life being hard sometimes, it is a truly beautiful thing to have the love and care of other people to work you through it. Love is a wonderful thing, whether it be familial love, friendly love, or romantic love. Without human interaction, there is no love. Without love, life seems almost pointless.

Blog #3: Ethan Frome

Pick one and respond effectively (2 paragraph minimum):

• In order to fulfill your own happiness you have to hurt or gravely disappoint a family member or a friend. What would you do, and why? Is hurting another person ever justified? What price are you willing to pay for personal happiness?

OR


• Imagine that you live alone, in a remote rural area, without either companionship or any means of communication such as a telephone, TV, or electronic mail. What do you think it would be like to live isolated from other people? What are some possible effects of living a life of isolation? How do you think you might react to living an isolated life?

Media Revenge - Blaise

I do not believe it is right for one single person to take revenge on another single person. An eye for an eye, just leaves the two people blind. I do, however, feel that when the discussion turns to more complicated and larger issues such as, war, the line begins to become fuzzy, and "revenge" may be justified in that instance.

I do not believe that Media is justified in seeking revenge on Jason, because she ends up making things much worse for herself due to her murdering of her own children. Instead of only losing her husband, she lost her kids as well.

Blog #2 Response: Harrison Level

I think that revenge on someone for something they did is sometimes justified. By no means is the saying "an eye for an eye" a good thing. A great response to that saying is "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" and I agree very much. An example of a situation where revenge is not needed would be if someone knocked over a drink on accident, or maybe even on purpose. I do not think that a valid response to that would be for someone to go out of their way to get revenge, it's simply just not needed. A situation where revenge is needed is when someone attacks family or someone close to you. If there is a problem between two people, it is just the lowest move to involve their family in any way, shape, or form. I do not advocate for anything illegal at all, but revenge should be done in a way that makes their day/week/year worse in any way possible. Never should anything physical, just mental or emotional.

Medea has good reasoning behind her hatred for Jason, but it goes beyond what would be considered "okay." When she plans to hurt Jason in every way she can and took it about one million levels too far. What Jason did was wrong, but killing everyone that Jason left her for is just completely unacceptable. By doing such an act she is not only hurting/killing those people, but also hurting herself and her future.

Medea and Revenge

It is not justifiable to take revenge on someone who has wronged you or someone close to you. However, I understand the sentiment. It is taught it many religions, including my own, that one should never follow the saying "an eye for an eye". One should forgive the wrongdoer and end the conflict there.

This usually does not happen due to the fact that we are human and forgiving can be a very difficult task. How hard forgiving is depends on age and circumstance. For example, a child in lower school will have a hard time forgiving a friend for stealing an animal cracker, but when that child is in high school or older, it no longer becomes hard to forgive friends for taking food. They may not want their food to be taken, but they will not begin a conflict over something so simple and readily available as food.

In the case of Medea, I believe that Jason had wronged her terribly. It makes sense she would feel the need to reciprocate those feelings towards him, however, the extent Medea goes to is simply too far. As I stated before, revenge should not be justifiable, and it should not be justifiable especially when that revenge involves the murder of not one, but three people.

Medea and Revenge

As humans, our natural instinct is to get angry and want revenge to whoever did us wrong. While it seems like a good idea in the moment, in the long run it does you no good. Fighting fire with fire will only make matters worse. Sometimes I don't even follow this advice, and the issues come back around and bite me in the butt. In my life, there has never been a time where revenge was the right thing todo, and good consequences came out of it.

For Medea's sake, Jason did do an awful thing to her that no woman should go through. While turning against her was ghastly, Medea's plan for revenge was in no way justifiable. To get back at Jason, her plan required the death of her children. As a consequence of Medea not being able to turn the other cheek, her innocent children's lives were on the line. While I say Medea was wrong to get revenge, she did have every right to be mad and disgusted towards Jason but it does not measure up to the ugly deeds Medea did.

In my opinion there is two ways to look at every scenario, the first being what you believe, the second being what you feel. For revenge my beliefs are to turn the cheek and accept what has been done, but as anyone who knows me knows my feelings are about as polar opposite of that as possible. Personally I could see myself depending on the scenario lean either way. For example lets say I told my best friend that I liked this really cute girl and then told him NOT to tell anyone else and rather then listen to me he goes and tells the entire school. In that situation I would turn my cheek, but remember that next time. On the other hand in an example where lets say I am a boss and have to fire someone from my company and they come and hurt my family or someone/thing to get back at me. Most likely I would react with revenge and probably anger. I think the biggest part of whether I turn my cheek or not is if someone gets hurt or if I am put into a life altering position. A great personal example of this is with my soccer team. I was playing goalie and was doing what I was suppose to be doing. Sadly I got scored on because a defender made a mistake. The defender, trying to escape the blame blamed me for his mistake. Instead of taking revenge and yelling and accusing him of making the mistake I just turned my cheek and continued to play. He later came and apologized to me. Now for the example of Medea I believe that she is justified in revenge, but should take the moral high road. The main reasons why I believe she is justified is because of Jason she is cursed by Aphrodite which makes her turn on her own family and country(not her fault). After killing her own family to allow Jason to escape and get the golden fleece, she then produces children. In those times and today's she has gone over what anyone could expect. In addition to that marriage to me is a  inseparable bond, which makes me take Medea's side rather then Jason's. To conclude, it depends on the situation whether I believe in revenge or not, and in the case of Medea I believe she has the right, but should take the moral high ground instead.

Medea and Revenge

I don't think that revenge can ever really be justified. However, I think that forgiveness, in the sense of waiting to forgive or maybe not being able to fully forgive someone, can be justified. I have found this to be true from my own life experiences. I have even found myself trying to get revenge on my own family members, by not acknowledging them and ignoring them to make them feel bad to get back at them for whatever they have done to me. This is when I found revenge is never the answer, because it did not make me feel better in the long run. 

I think that Medea is in the right to be completely upset at Jason, and to not forgive him, but I do not personally think anything is worth a human life/lives. The controversial part is that she has no choice with her love for Jason. That is where I think the situation can be justified, because she is technically mentally unstable. 

Medea and Revenge- Blog #2

The story of Medea is one of revenge and tragedy. This makes sense, as when revenge is involved, tragedy is the only outcome. This is because revenge is vitriolic in nature, and while the outcome may only be bad for the subject, the implications are still dire.

If I was to be deeply wronged, I would be understandably angry about this. Others may argue that it is simply justice, and that they are playing an eye for an eye. This is shortsighted (pun not intended), as revenge, by its definition, is not justice, and it is certainly ton an eye for an eye. The best example is in Medea itself. Jason leaves Medea for another woman and tries to exile her, where she has no place to go. Medea does not reply to this with equal force, she escalates, killing her and Jason's children. If this was justified, then why did the children have to die? Medea's revenge was not set in justice, nor was it a reply of equal injury. She wrongly killed her children in an effort to escalate the situation and hurt Jason. And to make matters worse, she set a precedent.

When I was five years old, one of my friends told me that playtime was over. I, wishing to continue playing with my legos, told him that I wasn't done playing. He said that the teacher said to stop playing, and so I promptly punched him in the face. While it was not premeditated, it was revenge. I felt that I was wronged, and so I escalated in an effort to hurt the other party. I shot the messenger, humorously enough, and it didn't end well for me, as I got in trouble. What's more, I set a precedent that I was violent and would resort to violence as a means of revenge. This echoed throughout elementary school, and I still deal with setting that precedent for myself to this day. Revenge is not just, it is not fair, and it is not smart. All revenge does is turn a bad situation worse, and set a precedent for reckless and dangerous behavior in the long run.

Blog #2: Medea and Revenge

Revenge is never healthy. When someone deeply hurts you it might seem as though the only option is to hurt them back. That emotion, however, is only in the heat of the moment and you might end up regretting your actions. An example of this is when my brother stole my favorite pencil in middle school. It was my lucky pencil that helped me ace every test so I was heartbroken when I realized it was missing. When I came home, I saw the pencil in my brothers book bag. I was furious, and instead of asking for it back, I decided to steal his English assignment for the next day. It made me feel justified in that moment, taking his assignment, but when I got home, that feeling vanished. My mother was so mad that I had stolen my brothers assignment, she grounded me. I got punished for my heated emotions. If I had just talked to my brother about the pencil, he would have given it back, but instead I decided I wanted revenge. I got punished for retaliating and not talking about the problem at hand.

I do not believe that Medea was justified in taking revenge on Jason. Medea hurt innocent people, her own children, for her own selfish reasons. While I do agree that what Jason did was wrong, it in no way should have resulted in the way that it did. Medea had a place to go after she was exiled, and could have taken her children with her. If she had decided to just leave, her future would be so much brighter and she could have been happy. Instead, she decided to let revenge ruin her by killing her own children, Jason's bride, and Creon. In the end, Medea is seen as murder of the innocent while Jason looks like the victim.

Blog #2: Madea and Revenge

I believe that it is not justified to take revenge on someone who has deeply wronged you. No matter how bad someone has upset you, it is never right to take revenge. Anger may be in place, but it is wiser and shows thats one is a stronger person if they take the high road and forgive. It takes extreme courage and strength to forgive someone when they have hurt you. I believe that forgiveness is the path that should always be walked, no matter the circumstance. Yes, it is important to stand up for ourself, but lashing out and seeking for revenge can only make matters worse. Being the bigger person and showing maturity is not always easy, but is definitely worth the outcome. There is no certain way that an act of revenge can be justified, forgiving and moving on is the only way to bring peace. In middle school rumors were made up about me, and mean things were said behind my back, but I chose to take the high road. Instead of starting bad rumors about the other girls, I said nothing and did my best to forgive them. Forgiveness is not always easy, and it does not always come quickly. Forgiving big wrongdoings takes time and perseverance. The outcome of forgiveness is alwaysworth the wait and better than the outcome of revenge.

 I do not believe that Madea was justified in taking revenge on Jason. As I said above, I do not think there is any justification for revenge. Madea was deeply hurt by Jason and filled with anger, but her acts of revenge caused a far worse outcome than the path that forgiveness would have taken her on. With Madea's revenge, her innocent children were killed in order to get back at Jason. There is absolutely no justification for murdering ones own children, no matter the point of view on the situation. Even with a broken heart, Madea should not have sought out revenge on Jason.

Revenge Blog #2

Though revenge always seems like the knee-jerk reaction when someone wrongs you, it is never the right thing to do. Turning the other cheek to the person who wronged you is always the best way to handle that kind of situation. Revenge often leads to more damage being done than what is necessary, and many times in my life I have tried to get back at people for talking badly about me by adding fuel to the fire, and it has always come back to bite me when my actions were unnecessary in the first place.
While what Jason did to Madea is disgusting and violating, she went to extreme measures to get him back. She did have very reason to be mad at him and detest him, but killing her children and his entire family was not a good reaction to Jason's actions. Revenge is never justifiable, no matter what someone does to you, and no matter how hard it is to follow.

Blog Resonse #2 Colin Harmon

In life when someone wrongs you, revenge will never get you anywhere. Revenge always prolongs the dispute which ends up causing more issues. An example of this in my life was in elementary school when one of my friends jokingly pushed me and I fell into a puddle, this  made very angry at the time and I desperately wanted to push him back, but I realized that if I did this the teachers would have gotten involved and both of us would have gotten in trouble, so I held back. If I would have retaliated, it is possible that we would have brokenn our friendship for such a minor incident.

I do not believe Medea was justified in her revenge on Jason. Medea ended up killing her own children, who  never wronged their mother, just to get back at Jason for cheating on her. Medea unjustly took the innocent lives of her own children just to stay back at a Man who cheated on her.

Blog #2 Response: Eric Blonigen

Revenge is a dirty act. Fueled by boiling emotions and irrational thoughts, revenge is done without thinking about consequences. Though technically revenge can refer to the harmless retribution to a harmless insult, a prank war for example, it is usually used under the connotation that the acts referred to are serious.

I don't believe that you can justify revenge. It is merely an irrational act that prolongs spite. The entire legal system bases itself in the limiting of revenge, with "an eye for an eye" being the excepted maximum, and punishments in practice usually being less. Revenge only breeds hatred, and promotes violence and tragedy down the line as feuds develop. I do not have any personal examples, thankfully, but the fact that the Hatfield-McCoy feud began over a suspected connection between one of the Hatfields in the killing of one of the McCoys and the disputed ownership of a pig is testament to the bloody price revenge takes.

Medea has good reason to hate Jason; He used her to get what he wanted and then left for greener pastures. But her hatred goes beyond a healthy level. Ignoring everything else important, ignoring the many enemies that will be made, ignoring even the fact that technically she was the one responsible for the deaths of her brother and father, she plots to hurt Jason in every way possible. When the best option is to take the high road, she stoops just as low as Jason, maybe even lower. Murdering their kids just to spite Jason, killing his new love and father-in-law, the later of whom is the ruler of the city, just because they were the ones he left her for. She chose a path that could only ever lead to the destruction of herself and everything she ever loved, and treats it as inevitable. Remember, Jason is a chauvinist, philandering scumbag, but Medea is a mass murderer. Which is easier to forgive?

Blog #2: Medea and Revenge

Be sure to answer all parts of the following prompt and to do so using proper grammar and sentence structure. Do not respond in a comment; make a new post.

Do you believe it is ever justified to take revenge on someone who has deeply wronged you? If so, why? If not, why not? Provide an example from your life that supports either claim.

If your answer is that it would depend on what was done to wrong you, include an example of a scenario in which you would take revenge and one in which you would not.

Also, do you believe Medea is justified in seeking revenge on Jason? If so, why? If not, why not?

Fate vs. Choice

Fate vs. Choice

I have always operated under the notion that fate is what will happen, while choice is what determines your fate. I make my own choices, but in doing so, I ensure my own fate, whether knowingly or unknowingly. This idea comes from the concept that physics and the universe in general is one massive domino effect. From the instant the universe began, based on the laws of physics, only one thing could have happened, and it is happening right now. There was no conceivable way that I would not be typing this right now. 

That isn't to say that I had no say in this matter. I did make a conscious decision to take the class, and to sit down and start typing. The Universe didn't force me to do anything. I am a willing participant in fate, because I was "fated" to be. Others may not feel the same, and that is because they are "fated" to be. Does this alter how I behave? No, for one reason: It is not supposed to, not for me. The only impact that fate has on my life is that I feel somewhat comforted knowing that no matter how it can play out, it is supposed to play out like that. 

In Oedipus Rex, by Sophocles, the exact same logic follows. Oedipus had all of the choice in the situation. The difference came in that he and many other characters, such as Laios and Iocaste, were alerted of what would happen before it did. They made all of the choices that led them to the ending of the story, and the ending is how the story was supposed to play out. The irony comes from their attempt to avoid fate actually being their fate. 

To conclude, choice and fate are not mutually exclusive. Fate is the overall existence of everything playing out, while choice is the play-by-play of how it all plays out. People live life how they are supposed to, which is how they live life. The logic, in an oddly fitting infinite loop, confirms itself, the exact way it is supposed to, just like fate. 

Blog 1

Fate vs. choice has been an issue discussed for years and years. Personally I believe that god is all knowing, but at the same time I also believe that he gave us the freedom of choice. With these beliefs I fall under the choice side because you determine your fate. It might be the American dream that all Americans have that an individual determines how successful they are. The rags to riches story is a prime example of something that the US thrives on while most other countries do not believe that. What the rags to riches story shows is that the average person has the choice to accomplish whatever they want.

Now most people that argue against choice saying that fate already determined your choice, but I do not believe that because why would god give us free will and not allow us to use it? Why would he allow Adam and Eve to disobey him if that meant a battle for eternity with the devil? Those are just a few biblical examples. I also like to consider the optimistic view that your success is not predetermined, but earned through hard work and effort. This is a more optimistic view rather then saying you have no control over what happens. This is why I believe choice over fate.

Fate vs. Choice

Fate vs. Choice

The debate between fate and choice has been happening since ancient times. Whether one takes precedent over the other in deciding one’s future can be argued both way. Fate implies that any person has a chosen destiny, and no matter what they do, they will always follow down that path. The other, choice, gives one the option to do what they please and make decisions on what is best for them. While choice is almost always seen as the better option, Oedipus in Oedipus Rex learns the hard way that one does not always have a choice in their destiny. Oedipus was destined from birth to murder his father and marry his mother and as much as he and his parents tried to run from this fate, Oedipus fulfills it. No matter how hard he tried, fate always had a hand in Oedipus’s future, he had no choice.

While Oedipus Rex is a tragic tale, it is not a true representation of life. In Hinduism, the religion both my parents follow, your destiny is determined by how you behaved in your past life. If you were a good person, you would be treated well, if not, this life will haunt you. There is however a chance for redemption though making good choices. This is the way I choose to look at it. While you cannot choose who you're born to, or how much money your parents have, you have the choice in how you live your life and how hard you work to achieve your dreams. Hinduism teaches you that life is a blend of both fate and choice. No one can change who they are but they can choose who they want to be.

Fate vs Choice

Choices can lead to fate. Fate is not a predetermined path, it is the path that one is set on due to their actions and choices. For example, because of the choices my parents have made, I am on track to graduate high school and attend college. If my parents had not sent me to Independent, I would be ultimately less prepared and may not have found my calling for physics. Fate is what happens directly after a decision. This is why fate can be changed because of one's choices.

I do not believe Oedipus has control over his own fate. While I believe that fate is not what determines the future, Oedipus lives in a Greek tragedy, and when something is "fate" there is no running away from it. Oedipus tried multiple times to avoid his curse, but this only led to him diving deeper into it. He is not able to escape his fate. Therefore his choices can not change his future.

Fate vs. Choice

I believe everyone is solely in control over their lives, but that some things do and do not work out for a reason. Since I am strong in my faith, I don't believe in fate; I believe in God's plan. I believe that everyone has the power to control the path their life goes down, because we make our own choices and create our own paths, no matter what we are given to work with. However, when things do not go as planned and we have done everything in our power to control them, I believe that is God's plan shining through, and telling us to try something different. 

I have found this to be true in my own life because when others have expected me to fall down the "wrong" path, I stayed strong in the path I was (and still am) on. In Oedipus' life, Oedipus did not have control over his life. He was a helpless victim from the second he was born, and his life plan was preordained. Without the curse upon his family, Oedipus would not have made the same decisions that he mistakingly did. 

Fate Vs. Choice--Oedipus

This is a very complicated issue. Personally, I have a secular worldview, and don't really subscribe to beliefs about the supernatural, so logically, that rules out fate. Of course, none of this can be proven or disproven; it is simply the way I view the world based on what makes sense to me. Because I can not observe any real evidence that there is some divine plan, I personally believe that the future is unwritten, and that it is up to the individual to choose their own destiny.  I do, however, believe that people aren't necessarily in complete control of their own lives; there are simply way too many factors that influence the very complex and confusing phenomenon we call life. To put it simply, I do not believe that fate exists, nor do I believe that people are completely in control of their lives. Life is unpredictable, but I feel it is important for people to live each day as fully as possible, because it is a very precious and beautiful opportunity that may end at any point.

In the realms of Oedipus, I think Sophocles was leaning more towards fate. It is a fictional story based on a myth, so the idea of supernatural entities and their power of humanity doesn't seem all that far fetched when it comes to literary fiction, especially of a play written in Ancient Greece. I would say that the most compelling piece of evidence that supports Oedipus being fated, was the fact that every step he took trying to out run his fate, he was just moving closer to it. An example of this is when he moves away from his adoptive parents (who he thinks are his real parents) and runs into his biological father, kills him (unknowingly),  and sleeps with his mother (also unknowingly). This, in turn, fulfills the prophecy.

Fate v. Choice

In "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles, the question of fate versus choice is a big issue. A prophecy is placed on Oedipus that is said to determine his fate. Oedipus does not believe that the prophecy is true and that the oracle's tellings are not his fate because the events that he believes to be true. However, Oedipus is not aware of the truth behind the situations and he is blind to the fact that he has been fulfilling the prophecy without his knowing. It was said that he would kill his father and Oedipus was unaware of who his biological father was and who he had murdered. Oedipus' fate was told by the oracle and although Oedipus believed he was making the choices in his life, he actually had no choice at all. 

 

In life, fate is inevitable. I believe that God has a plan for every single person, and if they follow the Godly path then they will end up where they are meant to be. Every human has a purpose and their life has a certain meaning that will be fulfilled when they each the end of their life. Throughout everyday life people make certain choices that will lead up to and determine their fate. In my life, I believe that God has lead me to meet specific people so that they can teach me a lesson or lead me in the correct direction in life. God lead me to Westminster Woods and there I met people and learned lessons that have changed my outlook on life. I have full trust in that where ever I go in life and that the choices I make are compelled by God and that He will lead me to my fate. 

Blog #1 Response: Harrison Level

I do not believe that anyone has a fate in life to become this or that. I think that everyone is bound to the decisions that they make, and that there is no external force pushing someone to make one decision over another. The reasoning behind this is that everyone on this planet has free will to do whatever they want, even if it is against local laws. It may be illegal to steal something, but the person has free will to do so if they want; laws made by governments are there to discourage people from doing certain things by creating different consequences for different actions. Although people do have free will over their actions, maybe there is an external force making sure that certain things happening, but there is no way to prove that it exists, or does not exist.

Oedipus is just unfortunately put in a terrible place. The prophecy makes Oedipus decide to do certain things that lead him to sleeping with his mother, or killing his father. Without the prophecy, would Oedipus still have made the same mistakes? There is no solid answer to the question of whether fate truly exists or not. Maybe Oedipus's situation was completely coincidence, maybe it wasn't, who knows for sure.

Fate v. Choice

Since birth, Oedipus was cursed with the catastrophic fate stating that he would kill his father and wed his mother. In ancient Greek tragedies, no matter how hard a character tries to run away from their fate, it's following them like a shadow. Oedipus never had control of his life because he never had control of his fate. The orical's prophecies never fall short, and therefore Oedipus knew that whatever he chose to do, or chose to go, he would receive what his fate bestowed.

In my opinion, I believe in choice. Decisions in your life decide where you go and what mistakes you pay for. In my life, my parents got divorced while I was at a young age. My parents decided that my brothers and I would live fifty percent at each of their houses. Because of that choice, I was miserable. I hated repeatedly going back and forth between my parents' house trying to act happy. Once I got of age to decide on my own, I chose to live with my mom one fully. I can truthfully say I have never been happier.

Fate vs. Choice

I believe that everything is intentional, that everything happens for a specific and meaningful reason. I don't know if I would call it "fate" or "destiny", but I believe that nothing is a coincidence. Everything from major life events to simply dropping a cup of coffee happens for a reason and will make for different outcome. We hear stories all the time of minuscule things happening to people that end up saving their lives; like if someone misses the bus and it ends up crashing. Certain people and events serve a specific purpose in our lives that act as a ripple effect to the rest of our story.

However, we are given the freedom of choice in our lives. We have the option to do the things we want to do, which is why consequences exist. Oedipus' fate led him to make the decisions that led him to fulfilling the curse. He lives in a world in which the gods that reign over this life control every aspect of the people. He had no choice; the curse was going to happen no matter what he did to avoid it.

I think that in life, you control your own destiny, and the life you live is all about the cause and affect of your actions. If your life was completely based on fate, then there wouldn't really be any point to life in my opinion because no matter what you did, the outcome would be the same. Ones ability to control their own outcome is an essential part of human life. However, I do partly believe in fate in the sense that some things happen in your life that force you to make a choice, and some things can influence your decision, which in turn affects the rest of your life.

I do believe that Oedipus had control over his fate. Even though Oedipus made a conscious decision to try and avoid his fate, he still made a choice that affected the outcome of his life. Oedipus' would have completely avoided his fate if he wouldn't have made the choice to actively try and avoid it. This just goes to show how the choices a person makes are the ultimate factor in the outcome of their life, not their destiny.

Fate v. Choice

In the playwright "Oedipus Rex," fate and destiny are consistent themes that drive the plot. Oedipus is haunted by his inevitable fate and it is obvious that he does not have any choice or control of his life. Oedipus ignored the warnings of the oracle time and time again and because of this, his life ended in ruin. The only thing that makes Oedipus' life inevitably controlled by fate is the context of the story. Greeks believe that the oracle tells prophecies that are true so in result and in the context of the story, Oedipus' life is controlled by fate.

In my own life, I believe that my future is controlled by choice. Look at some incredibly famous and successful people that came from poverty, struggled with an abusive childhood, were homeless, etc. They made a conscious choice to improve their own life by working hard to become successful and. Fate would have said that their life would end in ruin, just like how they started their life. I don't think that my life is fated because of the situation I grew up in. I made a decision to live with my grandparents as a child and to remove myself from my parents toxic lifestyles, and because of this, I have the honor to attend a private school, be a dancer and chase my dreams.

Blog #1 Response: Eric Blonigen

I don't think we are "fated," at least, not in the way Sophocles portrays it. While I concede that there are many conditions, obstacles, and advantages which are given in a basically random fashion, beyond that, one always has some sort of choice. Nothing is stopping you from doing something out of left-field and mucking things up. Short of arguing the non-existence of free will, it seems pretty clear that people have a tendency of acting in ways that cannot, and probably will not, be predicted exactly.

Oedipus, on the other hand, lives in a land of perfect prophecies. If the gods will it, it will be so. This means that whatever Oedipus does, and no matter how different the rest of his life becomes from choosing this or that, Oedipus will always kill his dad and wed his mom. This is the sole constant, as it is what the oracles have foreseen. Thankfully for us, whatever higher power(s) govern our world have decided to take a distinctly hands-off approach. And so we are free to choose.

However, I could be wrong, but in the end, even if I only think I have free choice, without my future being told to me, what's the difference.

Blog #1: Fate Vs. Choice--Oedipus

What are your thoughts on fate vs. choice? Do you believe your life is  fated, or do you think you're solely in control of your life--making  choices that are not governed by fate? Explain your reasons for  believing in either fate or choice. In other words, give examples from your life that have contributed to your beliefs. Remember, this is an open, safe  forum. No idea squashing.


Then, do you think Oedipus has control  over his fate? If so, why? If not, why not?

Your post should be posted by midnight on Friday, September 16th. Two paragraph minimum. Do not post as a comment. Click "New Post," write your post and then click "Publish."

Welcome to the Class Blog!

Welcome to your class blog! You will be posting responses to prompts about themes in literature. These posts are intended to be a mix of analyses and introspection. My goal is that you connect what we are reading about in class to your personal life. Feel free to comment on each other's posts, but remember to keep the comments limited to constructive criticism and praise. Also, remember that you are writing for your English class. You should be cognizant of grammar, organization and sentence structure. Each entry should be a couple paragraphs or more. Your first is already posted. Happy Writing!