EDUCATION BY POETRY

The general point made by Robert Frost in his work Education by Poetry is that there is a lot more to poetry than meets the eye. More specifically, Frost suggests that poetry is metaphors. He writes; “Education by poetry is education by metaphor.”(Page 48) in this passage, Frost  is suggesting that we have to recognize the metaphors in our life, which is a word or phrase that is suppose to describe someone or something. In conclusion, it is Frost’s belief that metaphors or poetry is the same as thinking.

In my view, Frost is wrong because feel like I can see different sides of things without a poem. For example, I understand the painting of Brueghel’s Icarus without the poem Musee des Beaux Arts. Yes the poem does help but I can use critical thinking and see different sides of the painting without the poem. Although Frost might object that a “person who gets close enough to poetry, he is going to know more about the word belief than anybody else knows…” (Page 50)I maintain that I can know just as much without reading poems, I can gain that knowledge elsewhere. Therefore, I conclude that poetry is not necessary to have in my life; I can get a different perspective by myself.

WHY LITERATURE

The general argument made by Mario Vargas Llosa in his work Why Literature? Is that we need literature to develop our mind. More specifically, Llosa argues that literature is more than just a luxurious pastime. He writes; “…literature is a dispensable activity, no doubt lofty and useful for cultivating sensitivity and good manners, but essentially entertainment... it s something to fit in between sports, the movies, a game of bridge or chess.”(pg 39) in this passage, Llosa is suggesting that we need to find time to read because “as a result of literature life is better understood and better lived.(pg41). In conclusion, it is Llosa’s belief that through literature humans can connect on so many different levels, it allows us to think more critically, and gain more knowledge.

In my view, Llosa is right because “humanity without reading, untouched by literature, would resemble a community of deaf-mutes and aphasics, afflicted by tremendous problems of communication due to its crude and rudimentary language.”(pg 41) For example, I read this book called Matched, the people tried to create a utopian society by only keeping 100 books, 100 songs, 100 paintings etc. The people in that society did not have a broad range of knowledge because they weren’t allowed to read unless it was necessary to do so for their profession. The leaders of that society had total control because no one would speak up because they didn’t have enough knowledge. Although Llosa might object that to keep our freedom, dreams, and opinions alive we must read. I maintain that we should read to learn more, and think more critically to help our lives. Therefore, I conclude that literature is necessary in our society today and that it should not be a luxurious pastime but a priority.

REFLECT AND CONNECT WEEK 3

I have used critical thinking all throughout my life.  I have not noticed that I have thought this much until I have read all these articles. And now that I have read the articles I realize when I am thinking critically.

           I am a very athletic girl and I am constantly playing sports. I would never imagine that thinking critically helps me out a ton in sports. For example, in basketball I always have to choose and think about what I am going to do when I have the ball. I could shoot the ball if no one is on me so we can score. Or I can pass it to someone so they can score. On the other hand I could hold the ball out in front of me so the other team can steal it, or I could make a stupid pass. Critical thinking has made me a better basketball player.

SHAKESPEARE IN THE BUSH

The general point made by Laura Bohannan in her work Shakespeare in the Bush is that human nature is the same all over the world, apart from certain details. More specifically, Bohannan argues that the elders of the Tiv culture will understand the plot of the story of Hamlet in the same way our society does. She writes; “I was quiet sure that Hamlet had only one possible interpretation, and that one universally obvious.”(pg 29) in this passage, Bohannan is suggesting that every culture will understand the story just like Shakespeare wanted us to. In conclusion, it is Bohannan’s belief that all cultures will get the same meaning out of every story.

 
In my view, Bohannan is wrong because the elders of Tiv kept questioning the story of Hamlet. For example, when she was talking about how Hamlet’s mother should have mourned for two years over her husband’s death. In the Tiv culture in this culture women are completely dependent on the men." 'Who will hoe your farms for you will you have no husband?' “(pg. 31) Although Bohannan might object that all cultures see the same meaning in a story, I maintain that from this story we find that elders in every society feel that they know what is best. Therefore, I conclude that everything is open to interpretation and experience depending on your culture.

LIFE OF THE CLOSED MIND

The general argument made by Anna Quindlen in her work Life of the Closed Mind is that many Americans now have a closed mind. More specifically, Quindlen argues that we believe in too many conspiracies. She writes; “…we have become a nation of conspiracy theorists. But everything now is a conspiracy: a right-wing conspiracy, a Clinton conspiracy, above all a media conspiracy.”(pg 68) In this passage, Quindlen is suggesting that we no longer think for ourselves and believe in ridiculous conspiracies. In conclusion, it is Quindlen’s belief that “America had been hijacked by those who cannot tell the difference between opponents and enemies, between disagreement and heresy, between discussion and destruction.”

 In my view, Quindlen is both wrong and right because some people have come to a point where once a person or group have done something “evil” we automatically believe all the people from that race are evil. Yet not all people believe that. For example, ever since 9/11 happened we have had a closed mind and judged the Arabs and think that they all are terrorists. Although Quindlen might object that ever since 9/11 we have had a closed mind. I maintain that we should keep an open mind and not judge people because of what their race has done. Therefore, I conclude that we should be an open minded people so we can tell the difference between opponents and enemies.

ARGUMENTATION IN A CULTURE OF DISCORD

The general argument made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argumentation in a Culture of Discord is that more students should learn how to write argumentatively. More specifically, Cioffi argues that some students have fallen into a pit where they look for the easier answer instead of thinking more to raise more questions to the reading audience. He writes; “most students …come from a culture that wants answers, not nuanced problematizations, not philosophy. They've been conditioned, as have most Americans, to seek out a position where a simple choice will solve the problem.”(pg 65) in this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that students start questioning their argument and come up with more complex questions. In conclusion, it is Cioffi’s belief that argumentative writing should never end with a definitive, an in-your-face "So there!" answer. Instead, he believes that it should raise more questions.

In my view, Cioffi is wrong because my view of argumentative writing is to choose a side and support it, not raise more questions. For example, all throughout school I have been taught to pick sides on an argument because the reader wants to know my point of view. I don’t think the writer wants me to raise more questions for him or her to answer. Although Cioffi might object that choosing sides on a argument” prohibits freedom of thought”, I maintain that choosing sides on an argument makes it easier for myself and lets the reader know what side I am on. Therefore, I conclude that I can choose side when I’m writing an argument, and I can still make it interesting.

WHY ENGAGE IN POLITICAL THINKING

The general point made by Glen Tinder in his work Why Engage In Political Thinking is that thinking helps human being to observe everything without taking sides.  More specifically, Tinder argues/suggests that we humans are thinking beings. He writes; “Only through thought do we affirm our rationality, our freedom, and our loyalty to being.”(pg 20) in this passage Tinder is suggesting that we should think more in order to have a good sense and sound judgment. In conclusion, it is Tinder’s belief that if we start to consider things with an open mind, clarity, and determination we will learn something and not be influenced by other people.

In my view, Tinder is right because the more thought someone puts into something they will be able to see more than one side of the story. For example, most people have the belief that what the Nazis did was wrong. But we wouldn’t know if it was wrong if it weren’t for ideas like the evil of tyranny. Although Tinder might object that if it weren’t for great philosophers ideas about evil of tyranny, and dignity of the law, we would not think what the Nazis did was bad. I maintain that just because some people make great ideas does not mean we can’t make our own. Therefore, I conclude that humans should think more because it helps us gain humanity not available in any other way.