The Year in Review Blog

I consider literature to be any written, spoken, or filmed work that seeks to send a message to the reader/listener/viewer. I do not consider music, photography, or painting to be literature, I believe they are an art form of their own. But written, spoken, and filmed work all similarly convey a message through words and/or actions. The message must be something intended to cause the viewer to think, to give the viewer information, or to entertain. I do not believe offering instruction, like this blog post or say a manual, is literature. It has a different purpose, and it is also easily seen in just how it is written.

I think literature has a spectrum of values in our society. It seeks to entertain, so it entertains us. It seeks to teach, and it teaches us things. It seeks to provoke thought, and often ti does. I think it is part of our culture, even though Western culture is often very amorphous in modern times. However, I think it is how society expresses itself, its desires, interests, and values. These are important. Literature ought to be used to express oneself adequately. If we are not trained in literature, both its analysis and its creation, we are rendered mute. We will converse in inefficient ways. Literature should be valued as a means for communication and expression. Many today are not adequately educated to analyze literature or create it, thus rendered at a disadvantage.

The most important piece of literature in my life (excluding the spiritual literature like the Bible or other religious books) is Harry Potter. Not because it is the best, but because of what it did. It caused me to love reading. I started the Harry Potter series in 1st grade. I was hooked. Throughout elementary school, I run an unnatural amount. My parents got mad that I would walk and read, thus not look at where I was going. And my love for reading all started with Harry Potter. To me, it is literature because it is a written work that seeks to entertain and inspire the reader. I fell in love with the story and everything about it, and thus it was an important part of my childhood and the beginning of my love of reading. I've certainly read books better written than Harry Potter, but this will still be my first, as it were.


What did you learn this year?

What stuck out to me the most this year that I learned was the nature of language. I'm interested in studying linguistics, and this class helped me expand that by thinking about how we express things and how we "show" with our words.

What do you think you'll take from this class as you move on to your senior year and beyond?

A greater appreciation for writing and the philosophy of language.

What did you struggle with?

Understanding some of my mistakes in my writing.

What do you wish we had done more of?

Even more philosophical questioning of language and how we express ideas. Just analyzing and dissecting writing to learn about words and how we express ourselves.

Research Exigence and Audience

ISIS goes by many names. It claims a caliphate in swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria. Whatever you call it, it presents a huge problem. In my research paper, I will discuss the issue of how the United States government should respond to ISIS. I would like to explore in detail the type of political and military actions that the US government can make against ISIS to eliminate it as a threat, as well as to make sure it does not return in some other form. I will limit this exigence by only exploring military and political actions by the United States, not by any other Western countries or any other group. It will also only be a secular argument involving politics and military, not involving religious action against ISIS.

Even though the US has been fighting (debatable) ISIS through airstrikes for some time, there are still questions amongst the public on how to truly defeat this enemy, or if we even should fight in the first place. A controversy in the public remains over the failure of the United States to restructure Iraq. In his Wall Street Journal article, Aaron Miller says President Obama is searching for a middle ground, between sending in troops and restructuring like Bush after 9/11 and doing nothing. Mr. Miller also argues that “ISIS is largely an outgrowth of no governance or bad governance.” In a New York Times editorial, the NY Times Editorial Board argues that Muslim countries have to team up to fight ISIS. They write, “[S]uch extremists will never be defeated if Muslims themselves don’t make it a priority” So, all these arguments from both these newspapers point to the debates over how Obama should handle ISIS in light of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, whether the weak governance in Iraq was a cause for ISIS, and how other countries, specifically Muslim countries, should play a role in the US fight against ISIS. What is at stake in all these debates is the sovereignty and autonomy of certain Muslim countries, since the argument could be made the lack of authority in Iraq and Syria allowed for this problem; a possible change in US foreign policy and how the US is viewed on the world stage; and the relationships between the US and other Muslim countries if we ask them to have a zero tolerance against any extremist actions in their country.

There is more at stake in this overall issue too, beyond just those few debates. Because after concluding those debates and discussing the whole issue of the rhetorical situation, an answer from the United States will affect different groups regardless. It’s hard to say who would benefit from the answer to this issue by the US government. But, the fact that this conversation is happening means that it is more likely for action to be taken, therefore benefiting the victims of ISIS whose safety requires intervention of some sort. It’s difficult to describe who does not benefit from this exigence. ISIS would not benefit over a discussion about how to destroy them, they would be affected negatively. Countries without a hand in this game of geopolitical poker would also not be affected, countries who do not struggle with Islamist extremism and are not involved in the Middle East. The list of those countries would be short. Those who have potential to be persuaded over this issue are American federal government officials in the Executive and Legislative branch about what policies and laws to enact to fix the issue. American citizens can also be persuaded over which policy to support as a citizen and which politicians to support based on their official policy over ISIS. Lastly, there is a large group left out of persuasion in this discussion. The Middle East itself and any country to possibly join a coalition against ISIS are not being persuaded, as relevant as they might be. This is only about what the US should do with and in these countries, not about what each country should do individually.

Works Cited

The Editorial Board. "A Necessary Response to ISIS." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24                               Aug. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

Miller, Aaron. "Obama’s Search for an ISIS Strategy Neither Too Hot Nor Too Cold." WSJ. The Wall                     Street Journal, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.

Blog Post 2 Postman

Postman makes strong claims throughout the first chapter of this book. He makes logical connections between things, but sometimes uses those connections too definitely, that is, he draws heavy conclusions. Postman finishes the chapter saying, "Our media are our metaphors. Our metaphors create the content of our culture." I believe there is definitely merit to that claim, but too it is too strong a conclusion to draw. My answer to Postman would be, "Maybe, but not necessarily." Here's what I mean by that.

I do not dispute that the medium of communication can affect the message; it can affect what becomes important to the viewer and in turn the one communicating. For example, I do not dispute that the rise of television made it harder for a fat person to run for president. However, all this example shows, is that the medium affects the message. Not that it has to create the message or content. For example, I like to watch Jason Evert, a well known chastity speaker on YouTube. I have also seen him give talks in person. I also listen to audio files of his talks in my car. These are three different media of communication, but the message he gives is the same. It is possible for the media to affect what consumers care about and what kind of content they expect, but that does not mean every single person in the world will conform to that. Plenty of people on TV will show fat people in positions of authority, even if the average consumer might find it "gross," because the average consumer is not necessarily everyone's audience.

I think Postman made a good point when he said Taft could not run for president today because he is too fat. I agree. But with that one premise, it does not follow logically that the media controls the content completely. It can bend the content or sway it in one direction. But only if the communicator allows it to do so. 

I think Postman's weakest point was when he talked about the "news of the day." He said the news of the day did not exist before media that allowed it. He agreed those things we find in the news still happened, but they did not become "news of the day." I think Postman is trying too hard here. He said the idea that there is "news of the day" was created by the telegraph. But that is not true. The "news of the day" was simply a name, a reconstruct, of an idea people already wanted to know. People already wanted to know what happened in different places that day. The "news of the day" is not a "figment of of our technological imagination." It is a nominal linguistic construct of a group of ideas that people wanted to know, and it exists.

Freedom of Speech

It is very difficult to sift through all the different opinions I have heard since the attacks in Paris. So many of them seem to believe that this is a battle of the West, champions of freedom of speech, versus extremism from some other part of the world. The entire issue is boiled down into that idea, which I think is an oversimplification.

In the West, freedom of speech has become deified. Secularists and liberal fundamentalists praise it as the solution to our problems. "Oh there is too much extremism? Counter it with more freedom of speech! Any other issue? More freedom of speech!" In the recent Charlie incident, many secularists have actually claimed that the solution to the terror attacks on freedom of speech is more free speech. This is so illogical. Freedom of speech cannot stand for itself nor should. Freedom of speech should not be exercised for its own sake. It should be defended on its merits, but that is different. Freedom of speech is intended to protect citizens' right to express an idea. But free speech for its own sake, like the new Charlie Hebdo cover with Mohammed on it, strays from what point of freedom of speech and the good it can achieve.

Freedom of speech ought only be used in pursuit of truth. Not for its own sake and shock value, as in Charlie Hebdo. I believe that the Holy Catholic Church contains the fulness of Truth, but I believe the pursuit of truth is a valuable thing, and I think freedom of speech is required for that. I think people should be able to get their feelings hurt. Life hurts, truth hurts. I do not think it is the governments role to censor someone like Charlie Hebdo, just because it will offend someone.

HOWEVER, although I believe it is not the governments job, I do not support Charlie Hebdo. It is an imprudent use of freedom of speech for its own sake. It is not the governments role to censor it, but it should be the people's responsibility to discourage it. And even if not just discourage it, at least not deify Charlie Hebdo as the solution to all of our issues. I protect the right to freedom of speech, but I do not support its abuse.

Je ne suis pas Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Mr. Jahjah put it best here: